National demonstration project on epilepsy in Brazil./ Projeto Demonstrativo em Epilepsia no Brasil

Epilepsy is the most prevalent non-communicable serious neurological condition worldwide. Unfortunately, the majority of people with epilepsy in low-income countries do not receive appropriate treatment. Stigmatisation is the rule. In this setting, the World Health Organisation, the International League against Epilepsy and the International Bureau for Epilepsy launched the Global Campaign against Epilepsy in 1997. This entered its second phase in 2001 and as part of it has set up demonstration projects in the People's Republic of China, Zimbabwe, Senegal and, more recently, in Brazil. The objective of the demonstration projects is to show, through methodological evaluation, that it is possible to establish a model of treatment for people with epilepsy in primary health care settings. The Brazilian demonstration project has targeted regions in Campinas and Sao Jose do Rio Preto, both in Sao Paulo State. A task force has been established to assess strategies to expand this project nationwide. A epilepsia é a condição neurológica grave de maior prevalência no mundo. Infelizmente, a maioria dos pacientes com epilepsia nos países em desenvolvimento não recebem tratamento adequado e sofrem estigmatização pelo diagnóstico. Diante deste cenário, em 1997 foi lançada uma Campanha Global Contra Epilepsia liderada pela Organização Mundial da Saúde, a Internacional League Against Epilepsy, e International Bureau for Epilepsy. A Campanha entrou na sua segunda fase em 2001 com os projetos demonstrativos que estão em curso na China, Zimbábue, Senegal e recentemente no Brasil. A finalidade do projeto demonstrativo é mostrar através de avaliação metodológica que é possível estabelecer um modelo de atendimento integral aos pacientes com epilepsia. O projeto demonstrativo brasileiro tem como regiões de atuação Campinas e São José de Rio Preto. Uma Task Force foi instituída para estudar a expansão da atuação para outras áreas do paí

Allergic skin rash with lamotrigine and concomitant valproate therapy - Evidence for an increased risk

Cutaneous rash is one of the commonest adverse events associated with lamotrigine. We assessed whether the risk is increased in patients receiving concomitant valproate therapy in a population of 103 adult patients with intractable epilepsy, who had lamotrigine added to their treatment. Of the 33 patients taking valproate, 10 (30%) developed a rash, whilst of the 70 not taking valproate, only 6 (8%) developed a rash. This suggests a significantly higher risk of cutaneous rash when starting lamotrigine in patients already taking valproate (p<0.02)

Duty, desire or indifference? A qualitative study of patient decisions about recruitment to an epilepsy treatment trial

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a common neurological condition, in which drugs are the mainstay of treatment and drugs trials are commonplace. Understanding why patients might or might not opt to participate in epilepsy drug trials is therefore of some importance, particularly at a time of rapid drug development and testing; and the findings may also have wider applicability. This study examined the role of patient perceptions in the decision-making process about recruitment to an RCT (the SANAD Trial) that compared different antiepileptic drug treatments for the management of new-onset seizures and epilepsy. METHODS: In-depth interviews with 23 patients recruited from four study centres. All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed; the transcripts were analysed thematically using a qualitative data analysis package. RESULTS: Of the nineteen informants who agreed to participate in SANAD, none agreed for purely altruistic reasons. The four informants who declined all did so for very specific reasons of self-interest. Informants' perceptions of the nature of the trial, of the drugs subject to trial, and of their own involvement were all highly influential in their decision-making. Informants either perceived the trial as potentially beneficial or unlikely to be harmful, and so agreed to participate; or as potentially harmful or unlikely to be beneficial and so declined to participate. CONCLUSION: Most patients applied 'weak altruism', while maintaining self-interest. An emphasis on the safety and equivalence of treatments allowed some patients to be indifferent to the question of involvement. There was evidence that some participants were subject to 'therapeutic misconceptions'. The findings highlight the individual nature of trials but nonetheless raise some generic issues in relation to their design and conduct