Addressing the treatment gap and societal impact of epilepsy in Rwanda: results of a survey conducted in 2005 and subsequent actions

This study, supported by the Rwandan Ministry of Health and the World Health Organization, was conducted in 2005 to determine the prevalence of epilepsy and its sociocultural perception in Rwanda, as well as epilepsy-related knowledge and practices of health-care professionals (HCPs). A cross-sectional, nationally representative survey was conducted throughout Rwanda by trained investigators. Participants were recruited by random cluster sampling based on the organization of administrative units in the country. Overall, 1137 individuals (62% from rural areas) were interviewed. The prevalence of epilepsy was estimated to be 49 per 1000 people or 41 per 1000 for active epilepsy. Onset of epilepsy before the age of 2 years was reported in 32% of the cases. Family history of epilepsy, head trauma, and premature delivery were reported in 53%, 50%, and 68% of the cases, respectively. Most (68%) patients did not receive any medical treatment for epilepsy; 21.5% had received some form of traditional treatment. According to responses from the general population, people with epilepsy should not be entitled to schooling (according to 66%), to work (according to 72%), to the use of public places (according to 69%), or to marriage (according to 66%). Furthermore, 50% believed that epilepsy was untreatable, and 40% thought that it was transmissible. Of the 29 HCPs interviewed, the majority knew the definition of epilepsy and status epilepticus, as well as basic treatment options and side effects. However, 90% believed that treatment was only necessary in the first week after a seizure. Living with epilepsy was associated heavily with stigma, and a significant treatment gap (68%) was identified. Following this study, numerous actions have been taken by the Rwandan government, the Rwandan League Against Epilepsy, and several non-governmental organizations to increase awareness about epilepsy and to close the treatment gap. An overview of these activities is provided

Comparative effectiveness of levetiracetam, valproate and carbamazepine among elderly patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy: subgroup analysis of the randomized, unblinded KOMET study

BACKGROUND: Few clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) as initial monotherapy for elderly patients. METHODS: This post-hoc subgroup analysis of data from an unblinded, randomized, 52-week superiority study (KOMET) compared the effectiveness of levetiracetam (LEV) with extended-release sodium valproate (VPA-ER) and controlled-release carbamazepine (CBZ-CR) as monotherapy in patients aged 60 years with newly diagnosed epilepsy. The physician chose VPA or CBZ as preferred standard treatment; patients were randomized to standard AEDs or LEV. The primary endpoint was time to treatment withdrawal. Results are exploratory, since KOMET was not powered for a subgroup analysis by age. RESULTS: Patients (n = 308) were randomized to LEV (n = 48) or VPA-ER (n = 53) in the VPE-ER stratum or to LEV (n = 104) or CBZ-CR (n = 103) in the CBZ-CR stratum. Mean age was 69.6 years, range 60.2-89.9 years (intention-to-treat population n = 307). Time to treatment withdrawal hazard ratio [HR] (95 % confidence interval [CI]) for LEV vs. standard AEDs was 0.44 (0.28-0.67); LEV vs. VPA-ER: 0.46 (0.16-1.33); LEV vs. CBZ-CR: 0.45 (0.28-0.72). Twelve-month withdrawal rates were: LEV vs. standard AEDs, 20.4 vs. 38.7 %; LEV vs. VPA-ER, 10.4 vs. 23.1 %; LEV vs. CBZ-CR, 25.0 vs. 46.6 %. Time to first seizure was similar between LEV and standard AEDs (HR: 0.92, 95 % CI: 0.63-1.35), LEV and VPA-ER (0.77, 0.38-1.56), and LEV and CBZ-CR (1.02, 0.64-1.63). Adverse events were reported by 76.2, 67.3, and 82.5 % of patients for LEV, VPA-ER, and CBZ-CR, respectively. Discontinuation rates due to AEs were 11.3, 10.2, and 35.0 % for LEV, VPA-ER, and CBZ-CR, respectively.CONCLUSIONS: Time to treatment withdrawal was longer with LEV compared with standard AEDs. This finding was driven primarly by the result in the CBZ-CR stratum, which in turn was likely due to the more favorable tolerability profile of LEV. Results of this post-hoc analysis suggest that LEV(VLID)195291