Encoding order and developmental dyslexia:a family of skills predicting different orthographic components

We investigated order encoding in developmental dyslexia using a task that presented nonalphanumeric visual characters either simultaneously or sequentially—to tap spatial and temporal order encoding, respectively—and asked participants to reproduce their order. Dyslexic participants performed poorly in the sequential condition, but normally in the simultaneous condition, except for positions most susceptible to interference. These results are novel in demonstrating a selective difficulty with temporal order encoding in a dyslexic group. We also tested the associations between our order reconstruction tasks and: (a) lexical learning and phonological tasks; and (b) different reading and spelling tasks. Correlations were extensive when the whole group of participants was considered together. When dyslexics and controls were considered separately, different patterns of association emerged between orthographic tasks on the one side and tasks tapping order encoding, phonological processing, and written learning on the other. These results indicate that different skills support different aspects of orthographic processing and are impaired to different degrees in individuals with dyslexia. Therefore, developmental dyslexia is not caused by a single impairment, but by a family of deficits loosely related to difficulties with order. Understanding the contribution of these different deficits will be crucial to deepen our understanding of this disorder

Failed transition to independence in young adults with epilepsy: The role of loneliness

Purpose: Many young adults with epilepsy are still living with their parents (‘failed transition to independence’) despite reaching the adult age. This study evaluated patient-related variables and measures of loneliness correlated to ‘failed transition to independence’ in adults, 25–30 years of age, with (childhood-onset) epilepsy. Methods: Patients with (childhood-onset) epilepsy and 25–30 years of age were recruited from Epilepsy Center Kempenhaeghe. Inclusion criteria were: diagnosis of (childhood-onset) epilepsy, and an (estimated) IQ > 70. Patients were sent one questionnaire and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Questions included the patient's level of functioning and satisfaction on three transitional domains (medical status, educational/vocational status, independence/separation from their parents), satisfaction with their friendships, and the validated De Jong-Gierveld Loneliness Scale. ‘Transition to independence’ was defined and categorized in a continuum with scores ranging from 0 (‘Failed transition’) to 4 for all patients. A Bivariate Correlation analysis was used to compute correlations between patient characteristics and failed transition to independence. Results: 59 patients were included in the analysis, of which 19 (32.2%) had a failed transition to independence. A statistically significant correlation was found between transition to independence and the social loneliness scale (p = 0.047) and the total loneliness scale (p = 0.04), and for the patients self-reported satisfaction with their independence/separation from parents (p = 0.01) and friendships (p = 0.04). Conclusions: Adults with epilepsy with a failed transition to independence experience loneliness and are not satisfied with their current developmental and social situation

A randomized controlled trial of the ketogenic diet in refractory childhood epilepsy

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the ketogenic diet (KD) during the first 4 months of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in refractory epilepsy patients aged 1–18 years. Methods: Children and adolescents with refractory epilepsy, not eligible for epilepsy surgery, were included. Following 1 month at baseline, patients were randomized to either the KD or to care as usual (CAU).Primary outcome is the proportion of patients with at least 50% reduction in seizure frequency at 4 months. Secondary outcomes are mean percentage of baseline seizures, seizure severity, and side effects. Results: Fifty-seven patients were randomized; nine dropped out, leaving 48 for analysis (i.e., 26 KD, 22 CAU). In an intention-to-treat analysis, 13 patients (50%) treated with the KD and four patients (18.2%) of the CAU group were responders.Mean seizure frequency at 4 months compared to baseline, after removal of two outliers in the KD group, was significantly lower (P = 0.024) in the KD group (56%) (95% CI: 36–76) than in the CAU group (99%) (95% CI: 65–133%).Twice as many patients in the KD group had a relevant decrease in seizure severity score (P = 0.070).Patients treated with the KD had a significantly higher score for gastrointestinal symptoms (P = 0.021) without an increase in the total score of side effects. Conclusions: This trial provides class I evidence that the KD is an effective therapy in children and adolescents with refractory epilepsy compared with CAU. Most often reported side effects are gastrointestinal symptoms.The study has been registered with the Netherlands Trial Registry (NTR2498)

Cognitive effects of lacosamide as adjunctive therapy in refractory epilepsy

Background: Lacosamide (LCM) is a novel antiepileptic drug (AED) with potential benefit as adjunctive treatment in patients with partial-onset seizures. As yet, limited information on cognitive effects of LCM is available, especially in real-life settings. Aims: In this open clinical prospective study, the cognitive effects of LCM were evaluated when used as adjunctive antiepileptic therapy in patients with refractory epilepsy. Methods: We included 33 patients aged between 16 and 74 years (mean: 37 years). All patients had a localization-related epilepsy. Patients were assessed at baseline before starting LCM treatment and during follow-up when the optimal clinical dose was achieved. Materials: Subjective complaints were evaluated using the SIDAED; effects on cognition were evaluated using the computerized visual searching task (CVST). Results: The CVST showed significant faster information processing reaction times at the second evaluation (P = 0.013), which was not correlated with seizure control, type of epilepsy, age, gender, drug load, number of concomitant drugs, dose or duration of LCM treatment. On the SIDAED, patients complained more about their cognitive function at the second evaluation (P = 0.005). For the SIDAED, a positive correlation at follow-up was found between the total severity score and higher age (r = 0.375, P = 0.031), but not with epilepsy factors or treatment characteristics. Discussion/Conlusion: Screening of the cognitive effects of LCM showed that LCM does not have negative effects on information processing speed. As this is the most sensitive function for cognitive side effects of AEDs, LCM does not seem to induce the common negative cognitive effects. Remarkably, patients complained more, especially about their cognitive function, which is possible the 'doing better, feeling worse phenomenon'