Cost-Effectiveness of Advanced Imaging Technologies in the Presurgical Workup of Epilepsy.

The cost-effectiveness and benefit of many diagnostic tests used in the presurgical evaluation for persons with epilepsy is for the most part uncertain as is their influence on decision-making. The options we have at our disposal are ever increasing. Advanced imaging modalities aim to improve surgical candidacy by helping us better define the epileptogenic zone and optimize surgical planning. However, judicious use is important. Randomized controlled trials delineating which mode of investigation is superior are lacking. Presurgical tests do have incremental value by increasing surgical candidacy and refining surgical planning. The yield of additional imaging will increase with complex localization. However, every case must be tailored by hypothesis, cost, and accessibility. Future studies using a quantitative cost-benefit framework are needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of advanced diagnostic tests (beyond magnetic resonance imaging) in the presurgical evaluation of those with epilepsy

Incidence and prevalence of drug-resistant epilepsy : a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective To evaluate the incidence and prevalence of drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) as well as its predictors and correlates, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Methods Our protocol was registered with PROSPERO, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting standards were followed. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. We used a double arcsine transformation and random-effects models to perform our meta-analyses. We performed random-effects meta-regressions using study-level data. Results Our search strategy identified 10,794 abstracts. Of these, 103 articles met our eligibility criteria. There was high interstudy heterogeneity and risk of bias. The cumulative incidence of DRE was 25.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 16.8–34.3) in child studies but 14.6% (95% CI: 8.8–21.6) in adult/mixed age studies. The prevalence of DRE was 13.7% (95% CI: 9.2–19.0) in population/community-based populations but 36.3% (95% CI: 30.4–42.4) in clinic-based cohorts. Meta-regression confirmed that the prevalence of DRE was higher in clinic-based populations and in focal epilepsy. Multiple predictors and correlates of DRE were identified. The most reported of these were having a neurologic deficit, an abnormal EEG, and symptomatic epilepsy. The most reported genetic predictors of DRE were polymorphisms of the ABCB1 gene. Conclusions Our observations provide a basis for estimating the incidence and prevalence of DRE, which vary between populations. We identified numerous putative DRE predictors and correlates. These findings are important to plan epilepsy services, including epilepsy surgery, a crucial treatment option for people with disabling seizures and DRE

Use of complementary and alternative medicine by those with a chronic disease and the general population - results of a national population based survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is becoming more common, but population-based descriptions of its patterns of use are lacking. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of CAM use in the general population and for those with asthma, diabetes, epilepsy and migraine.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data from cycles 1.1, 2.1 and 3.1 of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) were used for the study. The CCHS is a national cross-sectional survey administered to 400,055 Canadians aged ≥12 between 2001-2005. Self-reported information about professionally diagnosed health conditions was elicited. CCHS surveys use a multistage stratified cluster design to randomly select a representative sample of Canadian household residents. Descriptive data on the utilization of CAM services was calculated and logistic regression was used to determine what sociodemographic factors predict CAM use.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Weighted estimates show that 12.4% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 12.2-12.5) of Canadians visited a CAM practitioner in the year they were surveyed; this rate was significantly higher for those with asthma 15.1% (95% CI: 14.5-15.7) and migraine 19.0% (95% CI: 18.4-19.6), and significantly lower for those with diabetes 8.0% (95% CI: 7.4-8.6) while the rate in those with epilepsy (10.3%, 95% CI: 8.4-12.2) was not significantly different from the general population.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A large proportion of Canadians use CAM services. Physicians should be aware that their patients may be accessing other services and should be prepared to ask and answer questions about the risks and benefits of CAM services in conjunction with standard medical care.</p

Depression prevalence using the HADS-D compared to SCID major depression classification:An individual participant data meta-analysis

Objectives: Validated diagnostic interviews are required to classify depression status and estimate prevalence of disorder, but screening tools are often used instead. We used individual participant data meta-analysis to compare prevalence based on standard Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – depression subscale (HADS-D) cutoffs of ≥8 and ≥11 versus Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression and determined if an alternative HADS-D cutoff could more accurately estimate prevalence. Methods: We searched Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations via Ovid, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (inception-July 11, 2016) for studies comparing HADS-D scores to SCID major depression status. Pooled prevalence and pooled differences in prevalence for HADS-D cutoffs versus SCID major depression were estimated. Results: 6005 participants (689 SCID major depression cases) from 41 primary studies were included. Pooled prevalence was 24.5% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 20.5%, 29.0%) for HADS-D ≥8, 10.7% (95% CI: 8.3%, 13.8%) for HADS-D ≥11, and 11.6% (95% CI: 9.2%, 14.6%) for SCID major depression. HADS-D ≥11 was closest to SCID major depression prevalence, but the 95% prediction interval for the difference that could be expected for HADS-D ≥11 versus SCID in a new study was −21.1% to 19.5%. Conclusions: HADS-D ≥8 substantially overestimates depression prevalence. Of all possible cutoff thresholds, HADS-D ≥11 was closest to the SCID, but there was substantial heterogeneity in the difference between HADS-D ≥11 and SCID-based estimates. HADS-D should not be used as a substitute for a validated diagnostic interview.This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR, KRS-144045 & PCG 155468). Ms. Neupane was supported by a G.R. Caverhill Fellowship from the Faculty of Medicine, McGill University. Drs. Levis and Wu were supported by Fonds de recherche du Québec - Santé (FRQS) Postdoctoral Training Fellowships. Mr. Bhandari was supported by a studentship from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre. Ms. Rice was supported by a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship. Dr. Patten was supported by a Senior Health Scholar award from Alberta Innovates, Health Solutions. The primary study by Scott et al. was supported by the Cumming School of Medicine and Alberta Health Services through the Calgary Health Trust, and funding from the Hotchkiss Brain Institute. The primary study by Amoozegar et al. was supported by the Alberta Health Services, the University of Calgary Faculty of Medicine, and the Hotchkiss Brain Institute. The primary study by Cheung et al. was supported by the Waikato Clinical School, University of Auckland, the Waikato Medical Research Foundation and the Waikato Respiratory Research Fund. The primary study by Cukor et al. was supported in part by a Promoting Psychological Research and Training on Health-Disparities Issues at Ethnic Minority Serving Institutions Grants (ProDIGs) awarded to Dr. Cukor from the American Psychological Association. The primary study by De Souza et al. was supported by Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health Foundation Trust. The primary study by Honarmand et al. was supported by a grant from the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. The primary study by Fischer et al. was supported as part of the RECODEHF study by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01GY1150). The primary study by Gagnon et al. was supported by the Drummond Foundation and the Department of Psychiatry, University Health Network. The primary study by Akechi et al. was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Cancer Research (11−2) from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. The primary study by Kugaya et al. was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Cancer Research (9–31) and the Second-Term Comprehensive 10-year Strategy for Cancer Control from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The primary study Ryan et al. was supported by the Irish Cancer Society (Grant CRP08GAL). The primary study by Keller et al. was supported by the Medical Faculty of the University of Heidelberg (grant no. 175/2000). The primary study by Love et al. (2004) was supported by the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation (National Breast Cancer Foundation), the Cancer Council of Victoria and the National Health and Medical Research Council. The primary study by Love et al. (2002) was supported by a grant from the Bethlehem Griffiths Research Foundation. The primary study by Löwe et al. was supported by the medical faculty of the University of Heidelberg, Germany (Project 121/2000). The primary study by Navines et al. was supported in part by the Spanish grants from the Fondo de Investigación en Salud, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (EO PI08/90869 and PSIGEN-VHC Study: FIS-E08/00268) and the support of FEDER (one way to make Europe). The primary study by O'Rourke et al. was supported by the Scottish Home and Health Department, Stroke Association, and Medical Research Council. The primary study by Sanchez-Gistau et al. was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Health of Spain (PI040418) and in part by Catalonia Government, DURSI 2009SGR1119. The primary study by Gould et al. was supported by the Transport Accident Commission Grant. The primary study by Rooney et al. was supported by the NHS Lothian Neuro-Oncology Endowment Fund. The primary study by Schwarzbold et al. was supported by PRONEX Program (NENASC Project) and PPSUS Program of Fundaçao de Amparo a esquisa e Inovacao do Estado de Santa Catarina (FAPESC) and the National Science and Technology Institute for Translational Medicine (INCT-TM). The primary study by Simard et al. was supported by IDEA grants from the Canadian Prostate Cancer Research Initiative and the Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance, as well as a studentship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The primary study by Singer et al. (2009) was supported by a grant from the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (no. 01ZZ0106). The primary study by Singer et al. (2008) was supported by grants from the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (# 7DZAIQTX) and of the University of Leipzig (# formel. 1–57). The primary study by Meyer et al. was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The primary study by Stone et al. was supported by the Medical Research Council, UK and Chest Heart and Stroke, Scotland. The primary study by Turner et al. was supported by a bequest from Jennie Thomas through Hunter Medical Research Institute. The primary study by Walterfang et al. was supported by Melbourne Health. Drs. Benedetti and Thombs were supported by FRQS researcher salary awards. No other authors reported funding for primary studies or for their work on this study. No funder had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication

Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores do not accurately estimate depression prevalence: individual participant data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Depression symptom questionnaires are not for diagnostic classification. Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores ≥10 are nonetheless often used to estimate depression prevalence. We compared PHQ-9 ≥10 prevalence to Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (SCID) major depression prevalence and assessed whether an alternative PHQ-9 cutoff could more accurately estimate prevalence. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Individual participant data meta-analysis of datasets comparing PHQ-9 scores to SCID major depression status. RESULTS: A total of 9,242 participants (1,389 SCID major depression cases) from 44 primary studies were included. Pooled PHQ-9 ≥10 prevalence was 24.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.8%, 28.9%); pooled SCID major depression prevalence was 12.1% (95% CI: 9.6%, 15.2%); and pooled difference was 11.9% (95% CI: 9.3%, 14.6%). The mean study-level PHQ-9 ≥10 to SCID-based prevalence ratio was 2.5 times. PHQ-9 ≥14 and the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm provided prevalence closest to SCID major depression prevalence, but study-level prevalence differed from SCID-based prevalence by an average absolute difference of 4.8% for PHQ-9 ≥14 (95% prediction interval: -13.6%, 14.5%) and 5.6% for the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm (95% prediction interval: -16.4%, 15.0%). CONCLUSION: PHQ-9 ≥10 substantially overestimates depression prevalence. There is too much heterogeneity to correct statistically in individual studies

Accuracy of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for screening to detect major depression: individual participant data meta-analysis

Objective: To determine the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for screening to detect major depression. Design: Individual participant data meta-analysis. Data sources: Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (January 2000-February 2015). Inclusion criteria: Eligible studies compared PHQ-9 scores with major depression diagnoses from validated diagnostic interviews. Primary study data and study level data extracted from primary reports were synthesized. For PHQ-9 cut-off scores 5-15, bivariate random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity, separately, among studies that used semistructured diagnostic interviews, which are designed for administration by clinicians; fully structured interviews, which are designed for lay administration; and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric (MINI) diagnostic interviews, a brief fully structured interview. Sensitivity and specificity were examined among participant subgroups and, separately, using meta-regression, considering all subgroup variables in a single model. Results: Data were obtained for 58 of 72 eligible studies (total n=17 357; major depression cases n=2312). Combined sensitivity and specificity was maximized at a cut-off score of 10 or above among studies using a semistructured interview (29 studies, 6725 participants; sensitivity 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.92; specificity 0.85, 0.82 to 0.88). Across cut-off scores 5-15, sensitivity with semistructured interviews was 5-22% higher than for fully structured interviews (MINI excluded; 14 studies, 7680 participants) and 2-15% higher than for the MINI (15 studies, 2952 participants). Specificity was similar across diagnostic interviews. The PHQ-9 seems to be similarly sensitive but may be less specific for younger patients than for older patients; a cut-off score of 10 or above can be used regardless of age.. Conclusions: PHQ-9 sensitivity compared with semistructured diagnostic interviews was greater than in previous conventional meta-analyses that combined reference standards. A cut-off score of 10 or above maximized combined sensitivity and specificity overall and for subgroups. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42014010673