A six-year longitudinal study of neurocognitive problems in children with epilepsy

INTRODUCTION: This study describes the specific neuropsychological abnormalities among children with epilepsy (CH-E) living in Georgia. METHODS: A cohort of CH-E and children without epilepsy (CH-NoE), aged 6-13 years, admitted to the epilepsy center of the Institute of Neurology and Neuropsychology from 1st January 2010 to 31st December 2015, was selected and investigated with a structured protocol. Neurological/epileptological assessments were made and neuropsychological testing was done on all study subjects. RESULTS: Abnormalities in praxis, verbal functions, verbal learning, visual-spatial matching, visual-motor ability, and fine motor skills, working memory, and phonological memory span were often revealed in CH-E as compared to CH-NoE. Early age of seizure onset, epilepsy duration, and anti-seizure medication (ASM) use, in combination with brain structural abnormalities on neuroimaging, and structural etiology were independent predictors of impaired functioning in various neuropsychological domains. DISCUSSION: More than half of children with epilepsy have a variety of cognitive impairments, which may increase with ASM therapy, especially when the cause of seizures is structural damage to the brain. Therefore, in the process of diagnosing epilepsy, evaluation of cognitive functions should become an integral part to ensure effective management of the disorder

EpiNet as a way of involving more physicians and patients in epilepsy research: validation study and accreditation process

Objective EpiNet was established to encourage epilepsy research. EpiNet is used for multicenter cohort studies and investigator‐led trials. Physicians must be accredited to recruit patients into trials. Here, we describe the accreditation process for the EpiNet‐First trials. Methods Physicians with an interest in epilepsy were invited to assess 30 case scenarios to determine the following: whether patients have epilepsy; the nature of the seizures (generalized, focal); and the etiology. Information was presented in two steps for 23 cases. The EpiNet steering committee determined that 21 cases had epilepsy. The steering committee determined by consensus which responses were acceptable for each case. We chose a subset of 18 cases to accredit investigators for the EpiNet‐First trials. We initially focused on 12 cases; to be accredited, investigators could not diagnose epilepsy in any case that the steering committee determined did not have epilepsy. If investigators were not accredited after assessing 12 cases, 6 further cases were considered. When assessing the 18 cases, investigators could be accredited if they diagnosed one of six nonepilepsy patients as having possible epilepsy but could make no other false‐positive errors and could make only one error regarding seizure classification. Results Between December 2013 and December 2014, 189 physicians assessed the 30 cases. Agreement with the steering committee regarding the diagnosis at step 1 ranged from 47% to 100%, and improved when information regarding tests was provided at step 2. One hundred five of the 189 physicians (55%) were accredited for the EpiNet‐First trials. The kappa value for diagnosis of epilepsy across all 30 cases for accredited physicians was 0.70. Significance We have established criteria for accrediting physicians using EpiNet. New investigators can be accredited by assessing 18 case scenarios. We encourage physicians with an interest in epilepsy to become EpiNet‐accredited and to participate in these investigator‐led clinical trials

EpiNet as a way of involving more physicians and patients in epilepsy research: Validation study and accreditation process

OBJECTIVE: EpiNet was established to encourage epilepsy research. EpiNet is used for multicenter cohort studies and investigator-led trials. Physicians must be accredited to recruit patients into trials. Here, we describe the accreditation process for the EpiNet-First trials. METHODS: Physicians with an interest in epilepsy were invited to assess 30 case scenarios to determine the following: whether patients have epilepsy; the nature of the seizures (generalized, focal); and the etiology. Information was presented in two steps for 23 cases. The EpiNet steering committee determined that 21 cases had epilepsy. The steering committee determined by consensus which responses were acceptable for each case. We chose a subset of 18 cases to accredit investigators for the EpiNet-First trials. We initially focused on 12 cases; to be accredited, investigators could not diagnose epilepsy in any case that the steering committee determined did not have epilepsy. If investigators were not accredited after assessing 12 cases, 6 further cases were considered. When assessing the 18 cases, investigators could be accredited if they diagnosed one of six nonepilepsy patients as having possible epilepsy but could make no other false-positive errors and could make only one error regarding seizure classification. RESULTS: Between December 2013 and December 2014, 189 physicians assessed the 30 cases. Agreement with the steering committee regarding the diagnosis at step 1 ranged from 47% to 100%, and improved when information regarding tests was provided at step 2. One hundred five of the 189 physicians (55%) were accredited for the EpiNet-First trials. The kappa value for diagnosis of epilepsy across all 30 cases for accredited physicians was 0.70. SIGNIFIANCE: We have established criteria for accrediting physicians using EpiNet. New investigators can be accredited by assessing 18 case scenarios. We encourage physicians with an interest in epilepsy to become EpiNet-accredited and to participate in these investigator-led clinical trials