Abdominal migraine

Abdominal migraine is an important, common, and under-recognised cause of recurrent abdominal pain in children. It may be associated with, or followed by, other forms of migraine, and it predicts adult migraine.1234A positive diagnosis of abdominal migraine allows appropriate management and avoids unnecessary investigations and incorrect treatments.35 Although the evidence base is limited, acute and preventive treatments are available. This article highlights the diagnosis and management of abdominal migraine for non-specialists

Discussing sudden unexpected death in epilepsy: Are we empowering our patients? A questionnaire survey

OBJECTIVE: To examine patient knowledge about sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) compared to other risks in epilepsy. To explore patients' experiences surrounding SUDEP disclosure and opinions on how information should be delivered. DESIGN: A cross-sectional questionnaire. SETTING: Royal Free Hospital, London outpatient epilepsy clinics. PARTICIPANTS: New and follow-up patients attending epilepsy clinics at a London teaching hospital over six months. Patients identified as being at risk of suffering negative emotional or psychological consequences of SUDEP discussions were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient knowledge about epilepsy risks; patient opinion regarding source, timing and delivery of SUDEP information; impact on health seeking behaviour. RESULTS: Ninety-eight per cent of patients were aware of medication adherence, 84% of factors influencing seizure frequency, 78% of driving regulations, 50% of SUDEP and 38% of status epilepticus; 72% of patients felt that SUDEP information should be given to all patients. Preferences for timing of SUDEP discussions varied between those wanting information at diagnosis (40%) and those preferring to receive it after three clinic appointments (18%) to avoid information overload at the first consultation. Emotional responses (48% positive, 38% negative) predominated over measurable behavioural change following SUDEP discussions. CONCLUSIONS: Less than half the patients knew about SUDEP and status epilepticus. Although the majority of patients with epilepsy wish to be informed about SUDEP early on in their diagnosis, information must be delivered in a way that promotes patient knowledge and empowerment

Valproate risk form — Surveying 215 clinicians involving 4775 encounters

Objectives Annual completion of a Valproate Risk Acknowledgement Form (RAF) is mandated in the United Kingdom due to neurodevelopmental risks of in utero valproate exposure. The number of women of childbearing potential taking valproate, the uptake of the RAF within this population and their clinical outcomes is not known or monitored. This study surveyed responses of clinicians administering the RAF to women of childbearing potential taking valproate medications. Materials and Methods Study design—national online survey distributed to clinical specialists throughout the United Kingdom via their national organizations. Participants—clinicians qualified to counsel and administer the valproate RAF (as defined by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency). Main outcome measures—quantitative and qualitative responses regarding identification, uptake, effects and reactions to the RAF. Trial registration—registered at the Clinical Governance and Audit Committee at Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust Hospital. Results 215 respondents covering more than 4775 patient encounters were captured. Most patients continued on valproate, 90% with epilepsy as the indication. Respondents reported that seizure control deteriorated when switched to levetiracetam (33%) and lamotrigine (43%), compared to 7% when continuing valproate (P < .001). Conclusions 33%‐43% of clinicians reported seizure control deterioration in women changed to alternatives to valproate. Informed consent requires women considering a change are given this information. Systematic capture of data automated through online RAFs and linked to patient outcomes is needed. There remains little data on valproate given for indications other than epilepsy

The provision of care to adults with an intellectual disability in the UK. A Special report from the intellectual disability UK chapter ILAE

Purpose This article reflects the report by the British Branch of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Working Group on services for adults with epilepsy and intellectual disability (ID). Its terms of reference was to explore the current status of aspects of the care of people with an ID and epilepsy. Methods Survey content was developed from key themes identified by consensus of the working group. An electronic survey was distributed via email. The sample population was the membership of the ILAE UK, Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) Faculty of ID, Epilepsy Nurses Association (ESNA), and the Association of British Neurologists (ABN). Following a six week response period the data was then collated, anonymised and distributed to the working group in order that opinion statements could be gathered. Results The time taken for individuals with both new-onset and established epilepsy to undergo routine investigation was commonly at least 1–3 months, far beyond recommendations made by NICE (CG20). A small minority of clinicians would not consider non-pharmacological interventions including epilepsy surgery, vagus nerve stimulation, and ketogenic diet for this population. Almost universally responders are actively involved in the assessment and management of key risk areas including risk of drowning, hospitalization, medication side effects, and sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP). Conclusion This investigation identifies key themes and recommendations relating to care delivery and meeting the complex needs of people with ID and epilepsy. Adults with ID and epilepsy appear to exist in a unique, but inadequate, segment of epilepsy care delivery

Neurologists’ experiences of participating in the CODES study—A multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing cognitive behavioural therapy vs standardised medical care for dissociative seizures

Purpose We investigated neurologists’ experience of participating in the large CODES trial involving around 900 adults with dissociative seizures which subsequently evaluated the effectiveness of tailored cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) plus standardised medical care versus standardised medical care alone in 368 patients with dissociative seizures. Method We asked all neurologists referring patients with dissociative seizures to the CODES study to complete a 43-item online survey. This examined neurologists’ (i) demographics, (ii) knowledge of dissociative seizures before and after their involvement in the CODES trial, (iii) clinical practice before, during and since their involvement, and (iv) their experience of the CODES trial. Results Forty-three (51%) neurologists completed the questionnaire. Only about half of neurologists could make referrals to psychological intervention specific for dissociative seizures before and after the trial. One-third of doctors reported having changed their referral practice following their involvement. The majority (>69%) agreed that patient satisfaction with different aspects of the trial was very high, and 83.7% thought that it was easy to recruit patients for the study. Over 90% agreed they would like the treatment pathway to continue. Respondents found different elements of the trial useful, in particular, the patient factsheet booklet (98%), diagnosis communication advice (93%) and the CBT package (93%). Conclusions Neurologists participating in CODES generally found it easy to recruit patients and perceived patient satisfaction as very high. However, 46.5% of neurologists could not offer psychotherapy once the trial had finished, suggesting that problems with lack of access to psychological treatment for dissociative seizures persist

Awareness of social care needs in people with epilepsy and intellectual disability

Background: Nearly a quarter of people with intellectual disability (ID) have epilepsy with large numbers experiencing drug-resistant epilepsy, and premature mortality. To mitigate epilepsy risks the environment and social care needs, particularly in professional care settings, need to be met. Purpose: To compare professional care groups as regards their subjective confidence and perceived responsibility when managing the need of people with ID and epilepsy. Method: A multi-agency expert panel developed a questionnaire with embedded case vignettes with quantitative and qualitative elements to understand training and confidence in the health and social determinants of people with ID and epilepsy. The cross-sectional survey was disseminated amongst health and social care professionals working with people with ID in the UK using an exponential non-discriminative snow-balling methodology. Group comparisons were undertaken using suitable statistical tests including Fisher's exact, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney. Bonferroni correction was applied to significant (p < 0.05) results. Content analysis was conducted and relevant categories and themes were identified. Results: Social and health professionals (n = 54) rated their confidence to manage the needs of people with ID and epilepsy equally. Health professionals showed better awareness (p < 0.001) of the findings/recommendations of the latest evidence on premature deaths and identifying and managing epilepsy-related risks, including the relevance of nocturnal monitoring. The content analysis highlighted the need for clearer roles, improved care pathways, better epilepsy-specific knowledge, increased resources, and better multi-disciplinary work. Conclusions: A gap exists between health and social care professionals in awareness of epilepsy needs for people with ID, requiring essential training and national pathways

Tackling increased risks in older adults with intellectual disability and epilepsy: data from a national multicentre cohort study

Purpose: People with intellectual disabilities (ID) suffer multimorbidity, polypharmacy and excess mortality at a younger age than general population. Those with ID and epilepsy are at higher risk of worse clinical outcomes than their peers without epilepsy. In the ID population the health profile of those aged ≥40 years can be compared to those aged over 65 in the general population. To date there is limited data available to identify clinical characteristics and risk factors in older adults (≥40 years) with ID and epilepsy. / Methods: The Epilepsy in ID National Audit (Epi-IDNA) identified 904 patients with ID and epilepsy from 10 sites in England and Wales. This subsequent analysis of the Epi-IDNA cohort compared the 405 adults over 40 years with 499 adults ≥18 years aged under 40 years. Comparison was made between clinical characteristics and established risk factors using the Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) and Seizure Safety Checklist. / Results: The older adults’ cohort had significantly higher levels of co-morbid physical health conditions, mental health conditions, anti-seizure medications (median 5), and antipsychotics compared to the younger cohort. The older group were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with a co-morbid neurodevelopmental disorder, and to have an epilepsy care plan. / Conclusion: This is the largest study to date focused on adults with ID and epilepsy over 40 years. The ≥40 years cohort compared to the younger group has higher levels of clinical risk factors associated with multi-morbidity, potential iatrogenic harm and premature mortality with worse clinical oversight mechanisms

Awareness of social care needs in people with epilepsy and intellectual disability

Background: Nearly a quarter of people with intellectual disability (ID) have epilepsy with large numbers experiencing drug-resistant epilepsy, and premature mortality. To mitigate epilepsy risks the environment and social care needs, particularly in professional care settings, need to be met. Purpose: To compare professional care groups as regards their subjective confidence and perceived responsibility when managing the need of people with ID and epilepsy. Method: A multi-agency expert panel developed a questionnaire with embedded case vignettes with quantitative and qualitative elements to understand training and confidence in the health and social determinants of people with ID and epilepsy. The cross-sectional survey was disseminated amongst health and social care professionals working with people with ID in the UK using an exponential non-discriminative snow-balling methodology. Group comparisons were undertaken using suitable statistical tests including Fisher’s exact, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney. Bonferroni correction was applied to significant (p < 0.05) results. Content analysis was conducted and relevant categories and themes were identified. Results: Social and health professionals (n = 54) rated their confidence to manage the needs of people with ID and epilepsy equally. Health professionals showed better awareness (p < 0.001) of the findings/recommendations of the latest evidence on premature deaths and identifying and managing epilepsy-related risks, including the relevance of nocturnal monitoring. The content analysis highlighted the need for clearer roles, improved care pathways, better epilepsy-specific knowledge, increased resources, and better multi-disciplinary work. Conclusions: A gap exists between health and social care professionals in awareness of epilepsy needs for people with ID, requiring essential training and national pathways

Epilepsy, anti-seizure medication, intellectual disability and challenging behaviour – Everyone’s business, no one’s priority

Purpose People with Intellectual Disability (ID) and epilepsy are more likely to experience psychiatric conditions, challenging behaviour (CB), treatment resistance and adverse effects of anti-seizure medications (ASM) than those without. This population receives care from various professionals, depending on local care pathways. This study evaluates the training status, confidence, reported assessment and management practices of different professional groups involved in caring for people with ID, epilepsy and CB. Methods A cross sectional survey using a questionnaire developed by expert consensus which measured self-reported training status, confidence, and approaches to assessment and management of CB in people with ID and epilepsy was distributed to practitioners involved in epilepsy and/or ID. Results Of the 83 respondents, the majority had either a psychiatry/ID (n = 39), or Neurology/epileptology background (n = 31). Psychiatry/ID and Neurology/epileptology had similar confidence in assessing CB in ID-epilepsy cases, but Psychiatry/ID exhibited higher self-rated confidence in the management of these cases. While assessing and managing CB, Psychiatry/ID appeared more likely to consider mental health aspects, while Neurology/epileptology typically focused on ASM. Conclusion Psychiatry/ID and Neurology/epileptology professionals had varying training levels in epilepsy, ID and CB, had differing confidence levels in managing this patient population, and considered different factors when approaching assessment and management. As such, training opportunities in ID should be offered to neurology professionals, and vice versa. Based on the findings, a best practice checklist is presented, which aims to provide clinicians with a structured framework to consider causal explanations for CB in this population

COgnitive behavioural therapy vs standardised medical care for adults with Dissociative non-Epileptic Seizures (CODES): a multicentre randomised controlled trial protocol

Background The evidence base for the effectiveness of psychological interventions for patients with dissociative non-epileptic seizures (DS) is currently extremely limited, although data from two small pilot randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including from our group, suggest that Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) may be effective in reducing DS occurrence and may improve aspects of psychological status and psychosocial functioning. Methods/Design The study is a multicentre, pragmatic parallel group RCT to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of specifically-tailored CBT plus standardised medical care (SMC) vs SMC alone in reducing DS frequency and improving psychological and health-related outcomes. In the initial screening phase, patients with DS will receive their diagnosis from a neurologist/epilepsy specialist. If patients are eligible and interested following the provision of study information and a booklet about DS, they will consent to provide demographic information and fortnightly data about their seizures, and agree to see a psychiatrist three months later. We aim to recruit ~500 patients to this screening stage. After a review three months later by a psychiatrist, those patients who have continued to have DS in the previous eight weeks and who meet further eligibility criteria will be told about the trial comparing CBT + SMC vs SMC alone. If they are interested in participating, they will be given a further booklet on DS and study information. A research worker will see them to obtain their informed consent to take part in the RCT. We aim to randomise 298 people (149 to each arm). In addition to a baseline assessment, data will be collected at 6 and 12 months post randomisation. Our primary outcome is monthly seizure frequency in the preceding month. Secondary outcomes include seizure severity, measures of seizure freedom and reduction, psychological distress and psychosocial functioning, quality of life, health service use, cost effectiveness and adverse events. We will include a nested qualitative study to evaluate participants’ views of the intervention and factors that acted as facilitators and barriers to participation. Discussion This study will be the first adequately powered evaluation of CBT for this patient group and offers the potential to provide an evidence base for treating this patient group. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN05681227 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT0232554