Health-related quality of life among people with epilepsy with mild seizure-related head injuries

Accidental injuries in patients with generalized tonic-clonic seizures. A multicenter, observational, cross-sectional study (QUIN-GTC study)

PURPOSE

Patients with epilepsy have a higher risk of accidental injuries. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of accidental injuries and quality of life in patients with epilepsy and generalized tonic-clonic seizures and their association with patient-related factors.

METHODS

This is an observational, cross-sectional, multicenter study of patients with epilepsy and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures and/or focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures in the routine clinical practice of epilepsy clinics. In a single visit, demographic and clinical data and information on the type and severity of injuries were collected, and patients' quality of life was evaluated with the QOLIE-10 questionnaire.

RESULTS

In total, 406 patients with a median age of 41.1 years (range: 13-87) were included; 47.5% were women. Age at onset of tonic-clonic seizures was 25.4 (range: 0-83) years. Epileptic seizures were primary tonic-clonic (67.2%), focal to bilateral tonic-clonic (32.8%), focal with impairment of awareness (23.6%), focal without impairment of awareness (13.5%), absences (14.8%), and myoclonic (9.6%). Etiology was symptomatic or with unknown etiology focal (42.9%), genetic generalized (36.9%), symptomatic or with unknown etiology generalized (18.0%), and others (2.2%). The number of generalized tonic-clonic seizures in the last 12 months was as follows: 1 (41.9%), 2-5 (42.4%), and >5 (15.8%). Antiepileptic treatment at the time of the visit was monotherapy in 44.1% of the patients. The most commonly used drugs were levetiracetam (45.1%), valproate (20.7%), lamotrigine (20.0%), and perampanel (18.7%). In total, 59.6% of the patients had experienced at least one accidental injury associated with tonic-clonic seizures in the last 12 months, the most common being head injuries (35.5%), dental injuries (4.9%), burns (4.9%), and fractures (3.9%). A total of 25.1% had suffered at least one serious injury. The multiple logistic regression model showed that the factors associated with suffering an injury were the following: etiology (symptomatic or with unknown etiology focal and genetic generalized vs. symptomatic or with unknown etiology generalized, p = 0.0008 and p = 0.0077, respectively), number of seizures in the last year (2-5 vs. 1, p = 0.0115; >5 vs. 1, p = 0.0004), and psychiatric comorbidities (p = 0.0151). Patients with injuries had a worse quality of life than patients without injuries, according to the overall QOLIE-10 score (p = 0.0003).

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of the patients had accidental injuries related with seizures. Symptomatic or with unknown etiology focal epilepsy and genetic generalized epilepsy, >1 seizure in the last year, and concomitant psychiatric disease are the risk factors associated with accidental injuries in patients with tonic-clonic seizures, with the consequent worsening of quality of life.

Tools for assessing quality of life in epilepsy patients

In this review, we attempt to bring the reader up to date with recent developments in the area of assessment of quality of life (QOL) of patients with epilepsy, in both the research and clinical contexts. We present evidence from recent publications on the major and most commonly used QOL instruments for both adults and children with epilepsy, including both strengths and limitations. We discuss both generic measures and ones that have been developed specifically for use in the epilepsy population. We draw attention to some of the broader issues that render the QOL assessment endeavor a somewhat complex one - in particular, that epilepsy is not a single condition, with a common clinical trajectory; and that QOL measures as currently configured almost universally focus on its negative impacts, largely neglecting the possibility of those affected being able to retain reasonable social adjustment and life satisfaction. Finally, we suggest that further work needs to focus on plugging the current evidence gaps in relation to psychometric and cross-cultural applicability issues; and on the value of QOL instruments in the clinical care setting. We conclude by highlighting a number of issues from the QOL literature that will, in our view, be the focus of increasing research interest in the next few years.