Admission to hospital following head injury in England: Incidence and socio-economic associations

BACKGROUND: Head injury in England is common. Evidence suggests that socio-economic factors may cause variation in incidence, and this variation may affect planning for services to meet the needs of those who have sustained a head injury. METHODS: Socio-economic data were obtained from the UK Office for National Statistics and merged with Hospital Episodes Statistics obtained from the Department of Health. All patients admitted for head injury with ICD-10 codes S00.0–S09.9 during 2001–2 and 2002–3 were included and collated at the level of the extant Health Authorities (HA) for 2002, and Primary Care Trust (PCT) for 2003. Incidence was determined, and cluster analysis and multiple regression analysis were used to look at patterns and associations. Results: 112,718 patients were admitted during 2001–2 giving a hospitalised incidence rate for England of 229 per 100,000. This rate varied across the English HA's ranging from 91–419 per 100,000. The rate remained unchanged for 2002–3 with a similar magnitude of variation across PCT's. Three clusters of HA's were identified from the 2001–2 data; those typical of London, those of the Shire counties, and those of Other Urban authorities. Socio-economic factors were found to account for a high proportion of the variance in incidence for 2001–2. The same pattern emerged for 2002–3 at the PCT level. The use of public transport for travel to work is associated with a decreased incidence and lifestyle indicators, such as the numbers of young unemployed, increase the incidence. CONCLUSION: Head injury incidence in England varies by a factor of 4.6 across HA's and PCT's. Planning head injury related services at the local level thus needs to be based on local incidence figures rather than regional or national estimates. Socio-economic factors are shown to be associated with admission, including travel to work patterns and lifestyle indicators, which suggests that incidence is amenable to policy initiatives at the macro level as well as preventive programmes targeted at key groups

Phenytoin versus Leviteracetam for seizure prophylaxis after brain injury - A meta analysis

Background: Current standard therapy for seizure prophylaxis in Neuro-surgical patients involves the use of Phenytoin (PHY). However, a new drug Levetiracetam (LEV) is emerging as an alternate treatment choice. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to compare these two drugs in patients with brain injury.Methods: An electronic search was performed in using Pubmed, Embase, and CENTRAL. We included studies that compared the use of LEV vs. PHY for seizure prophylaxis for brain injured patients (Traumatic brain injury, intracranial hemorrhage, intracranial neoplasms, and craniotomy). Data of all eligible studies was extracted on to a standardized abstraction sheet. Data about baseline population characteristics, type of intervention, study design and outcome was extracted. Our primary outcome was seizures.Results: The literature search identified 2489 unduplicated papers. Of these 2456 papers were excluded by reading the abstracts and titles. Another 25 papers were excluded after reading their complete text. We selected 8 papers which comprised of 2 RCTs and 6 observational studies. The pooled estimate\u27s Odds Ratio 1.12 (95% CI = 0.34, 3.64) demonstrated no superiority of either drug at preventing the occurrence of early seizures. In a subset analysis of studies in which follow up for seizures lasted either 3 or 7 days, the effect estimate remained insignificant with an odds ratio of 0.96 (95% CI = 0.34, 2.76). Similarly, 2 trials reporting seizure incidence at 6 months also had insignificant pooled results while comparing drug efficacy. The pooled odds ratio was 0.96 (95% CI = 0.24, 3.79).Conclusions: Levetiracetam and Phenytoin demonstrate equal efficacy in seizure prevention after brain injury. However, very few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the subject were found. Further evidence through a high quality RCT is highly recommended

Mindfulness-based interventions in epilepsy: a systematic review

Mindfulness based interventions (MBIs) are increasingly used to help patients cope with physical and mental long-term conditions (LTCs). Epilepsy is associated with a range of mental and physical comorbidities that have a detrimental effect on quality of life (QOL), but it is not clear whether MBIs can help. We systematically reviewed the literature to determine the effectiveness of MBIs in people with epilepsy. Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, CINAHL, Allied and Complimentary Medicine Database, and PsychInfo were searched in March 2016. These databases were searched using a combination of subject headings where available and keywords in the title and abstracts. We also searched the reference lists of related reviews. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 231 participants were included. The interventions were tested in the USA (n = 171) and China (Hong Kong) (n = 60). Significant improvements were reported in depression symptoms, quality of life, anxiety, and depression knowledge and skills. Two of the included studies were assessed as being at unclear/high risk of bias - with randomisation and allocation procedures, as well as adverse events and reasons for drop-outs poorly reported. There was no reporting on intervention costs/benefits or how they affected health service utilisation. This systematic review found limited evidence for the effectiveness of MBIs in epilepsy, however preliminary evidence suggests it may lead to some improvement in anxiety, depression and quality of life. Further trials with larger sample sizes, active control groups and longer follow-ups are needed before the evidence for MBIs in epilepsy can be conclusively determined

Systematic review of safety in paediatric drug trials published in 2007

Background: There is now greater involvement of children in drug trials to ensure that paediatric medicines are supported by sound scientific evidence. The safety of the participating children is of paramount importance. Previous research shows that these children can suffer moderate and severe adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in clinical trials, yet very few of the trials designated a data safety monitoring board (DSMB) to oversee the trial. Methods: Safety data from a systematic review of paediatric drug randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2007 were analysed. All reported adverse events (AEs) were classified and assessed to determine whether an ADR had been experienced. ADRs were then categorised according to severity. Each trial report was examined as to whether an independent DSMB was in place. Results: Of the 582 paediatric drug RCTs analysed, 210 (36%) reported that a serious AE had occurred, and in 15% mortality was reported. ADRs were detected in more than half of the RCTs (305); 66 (11%) were severe, and 79 (14%) were moderate. Severe ADRs involved a wide range of organ systems and were frequently associated with cytotoxic drugs, antiparasitics, anticonvulsants and psychotropic drugs. Two RCTs reported significantly higher mortality rates in the treatment group. Only 69 (12%) of the RCTs stated there was a DSMB. DSMBs terminated five RCTs and changed the protocol in one. Conclusions: Children participating in drug RCTs experience a significant amount and a wide range of ADRs. DSMBs are needed to ensure the safety of paediatric participants in clinical drug trial

The Glasgow Outcome Scale -- 40 years of application and refinement

The Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) was first published in 1975 by Bryan Jennett and Michael Bond. With over 4,000 citations to the original paper, it is the most highly cited outcome measure in studies of brain injury and the second most-cited paper in clinical neurosurgery. The original GOS and the subsequently developed extended GOS (GOSE) are recommended by several national bodies as the outcome measure for major trauma and for head injury. The enduring appeal of the GOS is linked to its simplicity, short administration time, reliability and validity, stability, flexibility of administration (face-to-face, over the telephone and by post), cost-free availability and ease of access. These benefits apply to other derivatives of the scale, including the Glasgow Outcome at Discharge Scale (GODS) and the GOS paediatric revision. The GOS was devised to provide an overview of outcome and to focus on social recovery. Since the initial development of the GOS, there has been an increasing focus on the multidimensional nature of outcome after head injury. This Review charts the development of the GOS, its refinement and usage over the past 40 years, and considers its current and future roles in developing an understanding of brain injury