Search

Background Methods Results Conclusions Current proposed criteria for functional cognitive disorder (FCD) have not been externally validated. We sought to analyse the current perspectives of cognitive specialists in the diagnosis and management of FCD in comparison with neurodegenerative conditions.International experts in cognitive disorders were invited to assess seven illustrative clinical vignettes containing history and bedside characteristics alone. Participants assigned a probable diagnosis and selected the appropriate investigation and treatment. Qualitative, quantitative and inter‐rater agreement analyses were undertaken.Eighteen diagnostic terminologies were assigned by 45 cognitive experts from 12 countries with a median of 13 years of experience, across the seven scenarios. Accurate discrimination between FCD and neurodegeneration was observed, independently of background and years of experience: 100% of the neurodegenerative vignettes were correctly classified and 75%–88% of the FCD diagnoses were attributed to non‐neurodegenerative causes. There was <50% agreement in the terminology used for FCD, in comparison with 87%–92% agreement for neurodegenerative syndromes. Blood tests and neuropsychological evaluation were the leading diagnostic modalities for FCD. Diagnostic communication, psychotherapy and psychiatry referral were the main suggested management strategies in FCD.Our study demonstrates the feasibility of distinguishing between FCD and neurodegeneration based on relevant patient characteristics and history details. These characteristics need further validation and operationalisation. Heterogeneous labelling and framing pose clinical and research challenges reflecting a lack of agreement in the field. Careful consideration of FCD diagnosis is advised, particularly in the presence of comorbidities. This study informs future research on diagnostic tools and evidence‐based interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Current proposed criteria for functional cognitive disorder (FCD) have not been externally validated. We sought to analyse the current perspectives of cognitive specialists in the diagnosis and management of FCD in comparison with neurodegenerative conditions., Methods: International experts in cognitive disorders were invited to assess seven illustrative clinical vignettes containing history and bedside characteristics alone. Participants assigned a probable diagnosis and selected the appropriate investigation and treatment. Qualitative, quantitative and inter-rater agreement analyses were undertaken., Results: Eighteen diagnostic terminologies were assigned by 45 cognitive experts from 12 countries with a median of 13 years of experience, across the seven scenarios. Accurate discrimination between FCD and neurodegeneration was observed, independently of background and years of experience: 100% of the neurodegenerative vignettes were correctly classified and 75%-88% of the FCD diagnoses were attributed to non-neurodegenerative causes. There was <50% agreement in the terminology used for FCD, in comparison with 87%-92% agreement for neurodegenerative syndromes. Blood tests and neuropsychological evaluation were the leading diagnostic modalities for FCD. Diagnostic communication, psychotherapy and psychiatry referral were the main suggested management strategies in FCD., Conclusions: Our study demonstrates the feasibility of distinguishing between FCD and neurodegeneration based on relevant patient characteristics and history details. These characteristics need further validation and operationalisation. Heterogeneous labelling and framing pose clinical and research challenges reflecting a lack of agreement in the field. Careful consideration of FCD diagnosis is advised, particularly in the presence of comorbidities. This study informs future research on diagnostic tools and evidence-based interventions., (© 2024 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.)

Background: Given the significant impact epilepsy may have on the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of individuals with epilepsy and their families, there is increasing clinical interest in evidence-based psychological treatments, aimed at enhancing psychological and seizure-related outcomes for this group. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 10, 2017., Objectives: To assess the impact of psychological treatments for people with epilepsy on HRQOL outcomes., Search Methods: For this update, we searched the following databases on 12 August 2019, without language restrictions: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials from the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 09 August 2019), and PsycINFO (EBSCOhost, 1887 onwards), and from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We screened the references from included studies and relevant reviews, and contacted researchers in the field for unpublished studies., Selection Criteria: We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs for this review. HRQOL was the main outcome. For the operational definition of 'psychological treatments', we included a broad range of skills-based psychological treatments and education-only interventions designed to improve HRQOL, seizure frequency and severity, as well as psychiatric and behavioral health comorbidities for adults and children with epilepsy. These psychological treatments were compared to treatment as usual (TAU), an active control group (such as social support group), or antidepressant pharmacotherapy., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane., Main Results: We included 36 completed RCTs, with a total of 3526 participants. Of these studies, 27 investigated skills-based psychological interventions. The remaining nine studies were education-only interventions. Six studies investigated interventions for children and adolescents, three studies investigated interventions for adolescents and adults, and the remaining studies investigated interventions for adults. Based on satisfactory clinical and methodological homogeneity, we pooled data from 11 studies (643 participants) that used the Quality of Life in Epilepsy-31 (QOLIE-31) or other QOLIE inventories (such as QOLIE-89 or QOLIE-31-P) convertible to QOLIE-31. We found significant mean changes for the QOLIE-31 total score and six subscales (emotional well-being, energy and fatigue, overall QoL, seizure worry, medication effects, and cognitive functioning). The mean changes in the QOLIE-31 total score (mean improvement of 5.23 points, 95% CI 3.02 to 7.44; P < 0.001), and the overall QoL score (mean improvement of 5.95 points, 95% CI 3.05 to 8.85; P < 0.001) exceeded the threshold of minimally important change (MIC: total score: 4.73 points; QoL score: 5.22 points), indicating a clinically meaningful postintervention improvement in HRQOL. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence provided by the meta-analysis due to serious risks of bias in some of the included studies. Consequently, these results provided moderate-certainty evidence that psychological treatments for adults with epilepsy may enhance overall HRQOL., Authors' Conclusions: Implications for practice: Skills-based psychological interventions improve HRQOL in adults and adolescents with epilepsy. Adjunctive use of skills-based psychological treatments for adults and adolescents with epilepsy may provide additional benefits in HRQOL when these are incorporated into patient-centered management. We judge the evidence to be of moderate certainty., Implications for Research: Investigators should strictly adhere to the CONSORT guidelines to improve the quality of reporting on their interventions. A thorough description of intervention protocols is necessary to ensure reproducibility. When examining the effectiveness of psychological treatments for people with epilepsy, the use of standardized HRQOL inventories, such as the Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventories (QOLIE-31, QOLIE-31-P, and QOLIE-89) would increase comparability. Unfortunately, there is a critical gap in pediatric RCTs and RCTs including people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities. Finally, in order to increase the overall quality of RCT study designs, adequate randomization with allocation concealment and blinded outcome assessment should be pursued. As attrition is often high in research that requires active participation, an intention-to-treat analysis should be carried out. Treatment fidelity and treatment competence should also be assessed. These important dimensions, which are related to 'Risk of bias' assessment, should always be reported., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Given the significant impact epilepsy can have on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of individuals with epilepsy and their families, there is great clinical interest in evidence-based psychological treatments, aimed at enhancing psychological well-being in people with epilepsy. A review of the current evidence was needed to assess the effects of psychological treatments for people with epilepsy on HRQoL outcomes, in order to inform future therapeutic recommendations and research designs., Objectives: To assess the effects of psychological treatments for people with epilepsy on HRQoL outcomes., Search Methods: We searched the following databases on 20 September 2016, without language restrictions: Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We screened the references from included studies and relevant reviews, and contacted researchers in the field for unpublished studies., Selection Criteria: We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs for this review. HRQoL was the main outcome measure. For the operational definition of 'psychological treatments', we included a broad range of treatments that used psychological or behavioral techniques designed to improve HRQoL, seizure frequency and severity, and psychiatric comorbidities for adults and children with epilepsy, compared to treatment as usual (TAU) or an active control group., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration., Main Results: We included 24 completed RCTs, with a total of 2439 participants. Eleven studies investigated psychological interventions, such as cognitive, behavioral, and mindfulness-based interventions. The remaining studies were classified as educational interventions (N = 7), self-management interventions (N = 3), adherence interventions (N = 1), and mixed interventions (N = 2). Two studies investigated interventions for children and adolescents, and five studies investigated interventions for adolescents and adults. Based on satisfactory clinical and methodological homogeneity, we pooled data from six adult studies, two studies on adolescents and adults, and one on adolescents and young adults (468 participants) for HRQoL, measured with the Quality of Life in Epilepsy-31 (QOLIE-31). We found significant mean changes for the QOLIE-31 total score and six subscales (emotional well-being, energy and fatigue, overall QoL, seizure worry, medication effects, and cognitive functioning). The mean changes of the QOLIE-31 total score (mean improvement of 5.68 points (95% CI 3.11 to 8.24; P < 0.0001), and three subscales, emotional well-being (mean improvement of 7.03 points (95% CI 2.51 to 11.54; P = 0.002); energy and Fatigue (mean improvement of 6.90 points (95% CI 3.49 to 10.31; P < 0.0001); and overall QoL (mean improvement of 6.47 points (95% CI 2.68 to 10.25; P = 0.0008) exceeded the threshold of minimally important change (MIC), indicating a clinically meaningful post-intervention improvement of QoL. We downgraded the quality of the evidence provided by the meta-analysis because of serious risk of bias in some of the included studies. Consequentially, these results provided evidence of moderate quality that psychological treatments for adults with epilepsy may enhance overall QoL in people with epilepsy., Authors' Conclusions: Implications for practice: Psychological interventions and self-management interventions improved QoL, and emotional well-being, and reduced fatigue in adults and adolescents with epilepsy. Adjunctive use of psychological treatments for adults and adolescents with epilepsy may provide additional benefits to QoL in those who incorporate patient-centered management., Implications for Research: Authors should strictly adhere to the CONSORT guidelines to improve the quality of reporting on their interventions. A thorough description of the intervention protocol is necessary to ensure reproducibility.When researching psychological treatments for people with epilepsy, the use of Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventories (QOLIE-31, QOLIE-31-P, and QOLIE-89) would increase comparability. There is a critical gap in pediatric RCTs for psychological treatments, particularly those that use an epilepsy-specific measure of HRQoL.Finally, in order to increase the overall quality of study designs, adequate randomization with allocation concealment and blinded outcome assessment should be pursued when conducting RCTs. As attrition is often high in research that requires active participant participation, an intention-to-treat analysis should be carried out.