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

Inter-rater reliability of risk of bias tools for non-randomized studies

Abstract Purpose There is limited knowledge on the reliability of risk of bias (ROB) tools for assessing internal validity in systematic reviews of exposure and frequency studies. We aimed to identify and then compare the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of six commonly used tools for frequency (Loney scale, Gyorkos checklist, American Academy of Neurology [AAN] tool) and exposure (Newcastle–Ottawa scale, SIGN50 checklist, AAN tool) studies. Methods Six raters independently assessed the ROB of 30 frequency and 30 exposure studies using the three respective ROB tools. Articles were rated as low, intermediate, or high ROB. We calculated an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for each tool and category of ROB tool. We compared the IRR between ROB tools and tool type by inspection of overlapping ICC 95% CIs and by comparing their coefficients after transformation to Fisher’s Z values. We assessed the criterion validity of the AAN ROB tools by calculating an ICC for each rater in comparison with the original ratings from the AAN. Results All individual ROB tools had an IRR in the substantial range or higher (ICC point estimates between 0.61 and 0.80). The IRR was almost perfect (ICC point estimate > 0.80) for the AAN frequency tool and the SIGN50 checklist. All tools were comparable in IRR, except for the AAN frequency tool which had a significantly higher ICC than the Gyorkos checklist (p = 0.021) and trended towards a higher ICC when compared to the Loney scale (p = 0.085). When examined by category of ROB tool, scales, and checklists had a substantial IRR, whereas the AAN tools had an almost perfect IRR. For the criterion validity of the AAN ROB tools, the average agreement between our raters and the original AAN ratings was moderate. Conclusion All tools had substantial IRRs except for the AAN frequency tool and the SIGN50 checklist, which both had an almost perfect IRR. The AAN ROB tools were the only category of ROB tools to demonstrate an almost perfect IRR. This category of ROB tools had fewer and simpler criteria. Overall, parsimonious tools with clear instructions, such as those from the AAN, may provide more reliable ROB assessments

Clinical management guidelines for Friedreich ataxia: best practice in rare diseases

Abstract Background Individuals with Friedreich ataxia (FRDA) can find it difficult to access specialized clinical care. To facilitate best practice in delivering healthcare for FRDA, clinical management guidelines (CMGs) were developed in 2014. However, the lack of high-certainty evidence and the inadequacy of accepted metrics to measure health status continues to present challenges in FRDA and other rare diseases. To overcome these challenges, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment and Evaluation (GRADE) framework for rare diseases developed by the RARE-Bestpractices Working Group was adopted to update the clinical guidelines for FRDA. This approach incorporates additional strategies to the GRADE framework to support the strength of recommendations, such as review of literature in similar conditions, the systematic collection of expert opinion and patient perceptions, and use of natural history data. Methods A panel representing international clinical experts, stakeholders and consumer groups provided oversight to guideline development within the GRADE framework. Invited expert authors generated the Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) questions to guide the literature search (2014 to June 2020). Evidence profiles in tandem with feedback from individuals living with FRDA, natural history registry data and expert clinical observations contributed to the final recommendations. Authors also developed best practice statements for clinical care points that were considered self-evident or were not amenable to the GRADE process. Results Seventy clinical experts contributed to fifteen topic-specific chapters with clinical recommendations and/or best practice statements. New topics since 2014 include emergency medicine, digital and assistive technologies and a stand-alone section on mental health. Evidence was evaluated according to GRADE criteria and 130 new recommendations and 95 best practice statements were generated. Discussion and conclusion Evidence-based CMGs are required to ensure the best clinical care for people with FRDA. Adopting the GRADE rare-disease framework enabled the development of higher quality CMGs for FRDA and allows individual topics to be updated as new evidence emerges. While the primary goal of these guidelines is better outcomes for people living with FRDA, the process of developing the guidelines may also help inform the development of clinical guidelines in other rare diseases.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishe