Risk of recurrence after a first seizure and implications for driving: further analysis of the Multicentre study of early Epilepsy and Single Seizures

National audit of pathways in epileptic seizure referrals (NAPIER): A national, multicentre audit of first seizure clinics throughout the UK and Ireland

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines set clinical standards for the management of suspected first seizures and epilepsy. We aimed to assess if these standards are being met across first seizure clinics nationally, to describe variations in care and identify opportunities for service delivery improvement.

METHODS

Multicentre audit assessing the care of adults (≥16 years) referred to first seizure clinics from 31st December 2019 going backwards (30 consecutive patients per centre). Patients with pre-existing diagnosis of epilepsy were excluded. Anonymised referral, clinic, and follow-up data are reported with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Data provided for 727 patients from 25 hospitals in the UK and Ireland (median age 41 years [IQR 26-59], 52% males). Median time to review was 48 days (IQR 26-86), with 13.8% (IQR 3.3%-24.0%) of patients assessed within 2 weeks. Seizure recurrence was seen in 12.7% (IQR 6.6%-17.4%) of patients awaiting first appointment. Documentation for witness accounts and driving advice was evident in 85.0% (IQR 74.0%-100%) and 79.7% (IQR 71.2%-96.4%) of first seizure/epilepsy patients, respectively. At first appointment, discussion of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy was documented in 30.1% (IQR 0%-42.5%) of patients diagnosed with epilepsy. In epilepsy patients, median time to MRI neuroimaging was 37 days [IQR 22-56] and EEG was 30 days [IQR 19-47]. 30.4% ([IQR 0%-59.5%]) of epilepsy patients were referred to epilepsy nurse specialists.

CONCLUSIONS

There is variability nationally in the documented care of patients referred to first seizure clinics. Many patients are facing delays to assessment with epilepsy specialists with likely subsequent impact on further management.

First seizure from sleep: Clinical features and prognosis

OBJECTIVES

Patients with a first-ever unprovoked seizure commonly have subsequent seizures and identifying predictors of recurrence has important management implications. Both prior brain insult and epileptiform abnormalities on electroencephalography (EEG) are established predictors of seizure recurrence. Some studies suggest that a first-ever seizure from sleep has a higher likelihood of recurrence. However, with relatively small numbers and inconsistent definitions, more data are required.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study of adults with first-ever unprovoked seizure seen by a hospital-based first seizure service between 2000 and 2015. Clinical features and outcomes of first-ever seizure from sleep and while awake were compared.

RESULTS

First-ever unprovoked seizure occurred during sleep in 298 of 1312 patients (23%), in whom the 1-year cumulative risk of recurrence was 56.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 51.3-62.6) compared to 44.2% (95% CI 41.1-47.3, p < .0001) for patients with first-ever seizure while awake. First-ever seizure from sleep was an independent predictor of seizure recurrence, with a hazard ratio [HR] of 1.44 (95% CI 1.23-1.69), similar to epileptiform abnormalities on EEG (HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.24-1.76) and remote symptomatic etiology (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.27-1.71). HR for recurrence in patients without either epileptiform abnormalities or remote symptomatic etiology was 1.97 (95% CI 1.60-2.44) for a sleep seizure compared to an awake seizure. For first seizure from sleep, 76% of second seizures also arose from sleep (p < .0001), with 65% of third seizures (p < .0001) also from sleep. Seizures from sleep were less likely to be associated with injury other than orolingual trauma, both with the presenting seizure (9.4% vs 30.6%, p < .0001) and first recurrence (7.5% vs 16.3%, p = .001).

SIGNIFICANCE

First-ever unprovoked seizures from sleep are more likely to recur, independent of other risk factors, with recurrences also usually from sleep, and with a lower risk of seizure-related injury. These findings may inform treatment decisions and counseling after first-ever seizure.

Predictive Power of Interictal Epileptiform Discharges in Fitness-to-Drive Evaluation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate and predict the effects of interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs) on driving ability using simple reaction tests and a driving simulator.

METHODS

Patients with various epilepsies were evaluated with simultaneous EEGs during their response to visual stimuli in a single-flash test, a car-driving video game, and a realistic driving simulator. Reaction times (RTs) and missed reactions or crashes (miss/crash) during normal EEG and IEDs were measured. IEDs, as considered in this study, were a series of epileptiform potentials (>1 potential) and were classified as generalized typical, generalized atypical, or focal. RT and miss/crash in relation to IED type, duration, and test type were analyzed. RT prolongation, miss/crash probability, and odds ratio (OR) of miss/crash due to IEDs were calculated.

RESULTS

Generalized typical IEDs prolonged RT by 164 ms, compared with generalized atypical IEDs (77.0 ms) and focal IEDs (48.0 ms) (p < 0.01). Generalized typical IEDs had a session miss/crash probability of 14.7% compared with a zero median for focal and generalized atypical IEDs (p < 0.01). Long repetitive bursts of focal IEDs lasting >2 seconds had a 2.6% miss/crash probabilityIED. Cumulated miss/crash probability could be predicted from RT prolongation: 90.3 ms yielded a 20% miss/crash probability. All tests were nonsuperior to each other in detecting miss/crash probabilitiesIED (zero median for all 3 tests) or RT prolongations (flash test: 56.4 ms, car-driving video game: 75.5 ms, simulator 86.6 ms). IEDs increased the OR of miss/crash in the simulator by 4.9-fold compared with normal EEG. A table of expected RT prolongations and miss/crash probabilities for IEDs of a given type and duration was created.

DISCUSSION

IED-associated miss/crash probability and RT prolongation were comparably well detected by all tests. Long focal IED bursts carry a low risk, while generalized typical IEDs are the primary cause of miss/crash. We propose a cumulative 20% miss/crash risk at an RT prolongation of 90.3 ms as a clinically relevant IED effect. The IED-associated OR in the simulator approximates the effects of sleepiness or low blood alcohol level while driving on real roads. A decision aid for fitness-to-drive evaluation was created by providing the expected RT prolongations and misses/crashes when IEDs of a certain type and duration are detected in routine EEG.

Antiseizure Medication Withdrawal Practice Patterns: A Survey Among Members of the American Academy of Neurology and EpiCARE

Background and Objectives

To describe neurologist practice patterns, challenges, and decision support needs pertaining to withdrawal of antiseizure medications (ASMs) in patients with well-controlled epilepsy.

Methods

We sent an electronic survey to (1) US and (2) European physician members of the American Academy of Neurology and (3) members of EpiCARE, a European Reference Network for rare and complex epilepsies. Analyses included frequencies and percentages, and we showed distributions through histograms and violin plots.

Results

We sent the survey to 4,923 individuals; 463 consented, 411 passed eligibility questions, and 287 responded to at least 1 of these questions. Most respondents indicated that they might ever consider ASM withdrawal, with respondents treating mostly children being more likely ever to consider withdrawal (e.g., medical monotherapy: children 96% vs adults 81%; p < 0.05). The most important factors when making decisions included seizure probability (83%), consequences of seizures (73%), and driving (74%). The top challenges when making decisions included unclear seizure probability (81%), inadequate guidelines (50%), and difficulty communicating probabilities (45%). Respondents would consider withdrawal after a median of 2-year seizure freedom, but also responded that they would begin withdrawal on average only when the postwithdrawal seizure relapse risk in the coming 2 years was less than 15%-30%. Wide variation existed in the use of words or numbers in respondents' counsel methods, for example, percentages vs frequencies or probability of seizure freedom vs seizure. The most highly rated point-of-care methods to inform providers of calculated risk were Kaplan-Meier curves and showing percentages only, rather than pictographs or text recommendations alone.

Discussion

Most surveyed neurologists would consider withdrawing ASMs in seizure-free individuals. Seizure probability was the largest factor driving decisions, yet estimating seizure probabilities was the greatest challenge. Respondents on average indicated that they may withdraw ASM after a minimum seizure-free duration of 2 years, yet also on average were willing to withdraw when seizure risk decreased below 15%-30%, which is lower than most patients' postwithdrawal risk at 2-year seizure freedom and lower than the equivalent even of a first seizure of life. These findings will inform future efforts at developing decision support tools aimed at optimizing ASM withdrawal decisions.

Prognosis of adults and children following a first unprovoked seizure

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is clinically defined as two or more unprovoked epileptic seizures more than 24 hours apart. Given that, a diagnosis of epilepsy can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality, it is imperative that clinicians (and people with seizures and their relatives) have access to accurate and reliable prognostic estimates, to guide clinical practice on the risks of developing further unprovoked seizures (and by definition, a diagnosis of epilepsy) following single unprovoked epileptic seizure.

OBJECTIVES

1. To provide an accurate estimate of the proportion of individuals going on to have further unprovoked seizures at subsequent time points following a single unprovoked epileptic seizure (or cluster of epileptic seizures within a 24-hour period, or a first episode of status epilepticus), of any seizure type (overall prognosis). 2. To evaluate the mortality rate following a first unprovoked epileptic seizure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases on 19 September 2019 and again on 30 March 2021, with no language restrictions. The Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to March 29, 2021), SCOPUS (1823 onwards), ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). CRS Web includes randomized or quasi-randomized, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. In MEDLINE (Ovid) the coverage end date always lags a few days behind the search date.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies, both retrospective and prospective, of all age groups (except those in the neonatal period (< 1 month of age)), of people with a single unprovoked seizure, followed up for a minimum of six months, with no upper limit of follow-up, with the study end point being seizure recurrence, death, or loss to follow-up. To be included, studies must have included at least 30 participants. We excluded studies that involved people with seizures that occur as a result of an acute precipitant or provoking factor, or in close temporal proximity to an acute neurological insult, since these are not considered epileptic in aetiology (acute symptomatic seizures). We also excluded people with situational seizures, such as febrile convulsions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors conducted the initial screening of titles and abstracts identified through the electronic searches, and removed non-relevant articles. We obtained the full-text articles of all remaining potentially relevant studies, or those whose relevance could not be determined from the abstract alone and two authors independently assessed for eligibility. All disagreements were resolved through discussion with no need to defer to a third review author. We extracted data from included studies using a data extraction form based on the checklist for critical appraisal and data extraction for systematicreviews of prediction modelling studies (CHARMS). Two review authors then appraised the included studies, using a standardised approach based on the quality in prognostic studies (QUIPS) tool, which was adapted for overall prognosis (seizure recurrence). We conducted a meta-analysis using Review Manager 2014, with a random-effects generic inverse variance meta-analysis model, which accounted for any between-study heterogeneity in the prognostic effect. We then summarised the meta-analysis by the pooled estimate (the average prognostic factor effect), its 95% confidence interval (CI), the estimates of I² and Tau² (heterogeneity), and a 95% prediction interval for the prognostic effect in a single population at three various time points, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the ages of the cohorts included; studies involving all ages, studies that recruited adult only and those that were purely paediatric.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-eight studies (involving 54 cohorts), with a total of 12,160 participants (median 147, range 31 to 1443), met the inclusion criteria for the review. Of the 58 studies, 26 studies were paediatric studies, 16 were adult and the remaining 16 studies were a combination of paediatric and adult populations. Most included studies had a cohort study design with two case-control studies and one nested case-control study. Thirty-two studies (29 cohorts) reported a prospective longitudinal design whilst 15 studies had a retrospective design whilst the remaining studies were randomised controlled trials. Nine of the studies included presented mortality data following a first unprovoked seizure. For a mortality study to be included, a proportional mortality ratio (PMR) or a standardised mortality ratio (SMR) had to be given at a specific time point following a first unprovoked seizure. To be included in the meta-analysis a study had to present clear seizure recurrence data at 6 months, 12 months or 24 months. Forty-six studies were included in the meta-analysis, of which 23 were paediatric, 13 were adult, and 10 were a combination of paediatric and adult populations. A meta-analysis was performed at three time points; six months, one year and two years for all ages combined, paediatric and adult studies, respectively. We found an estimated overall seizure recurrence of all included studies at six months of 27% (95% CI 24% to 31%), 36% (95% CI 33% to 40%) at one year and 43% (95% CI 37% to 44%) at two years, with slightly lower estimates for adult subgroup analysis and slightly higher estimates for paediatric subgroup analysis. It was not possible to provide a summary estimate of the risk of seizure recurrence beyond these time points as most of the included studies were of short follow-up and too few studies presented recurrence rates at a single time point beyond two years. The evidence presented was found to be of moderate certainty.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limitations of the data (moderate-certainty of evidence), mainly relating to clinical and methodological heterogeneity we have provided summary estimates for the likely risk of seizure recurrence at six months, one year and two years for both children and adults. This provides information that is likely to be useful for the clinician counselling patients (or their parents) on the probable risk of further seizures in the short-term whilst acknowledging the paucity of long-term recurrence data, particularly beyond 10 years.

Protocol for an observational cohort study investigating biomarkers predicting seizure recurrence following a first unprovoked seizure in adults

INTRODUCTION

A first unprovoked seizure is a common presentation, reliably identifying those that will have recurrent seizures is a challenge. This study will be the first to explore the combined utility of serum biomarkers, quantitative electroencephalogram (EEG) and quantitative MRI to predict seizure recurrence. This will inform patient stratification for counselling and the inclusion of high-risk patients in clinical trials of disease-modifying agents in early epilepsy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

100 patients with first unprovoked seizure will be recruited from a tertiary neuroscience centre and baseline assessments will include structural MRI, EEG and a blood sample. As part of a nested pilot study, a subset of 40 patients will have advanced MRI sequences performed that are usually reserved for patients with refractory chronic epilepsy. The remaining 60 patients will have standard clinical MRI sequences. Patients will be followed up every 6 months for a 24-month period to assess seizure recurrence. Connectivity and network-based analyses of EEG and MRI data will be carried out and examined in relation to seizure recurrence. Patient outcomes will also be investigated with respect to analysis of high-mobility group box-1 from blood serum samples.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by North East-Tyne & Wear South Research Ethics Committee (20/NE/0078) and funded by an Association of British Neurologists and Guarantors of Brain clinical research training fellowship. Findings will be presented at national and international meetings published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NIHR Clinical Research Network's (CRN) Central Portfolio Management System (CPMS)-44976.

Driving restrictions in patients with seizures; a review of the regulations from the English-speaking nations

PURPOSE

We investigated the existing regulations about driving eligibility and restrictions for persons with seizures in all English-speaking countries in the world. We aimed to identify: 1) Is there a distinction between epilepsy and functional seizures (FS) in the regulations? 2) What is the required seizure-free period before a person with seizure regains their driving eligibility?

METHODS

First, we identified all the English-speaking countries in the world. Then, we referred to the website of the Department of Motor Vehicles or its equivalent in each nation or we searched the Google engine with the name of each specific nation and "driving" and "epilepsy".

RESULTS

There are 59 English-speaking countries in the world. For 37 nations, the data on regulations about driving eligibility for persons with seizures were lacking. Only the UK has made distinctions between epilepsy and FS. The required seizure-free period before a person with seizure regains their driving eligibility varied significantly between nations. Not all nations have made distinctions between private driving and commercial driving. Finally, only some nations have specific rules and regulations for different scenarios (e.g., provoked seizures vs epilepsy, or nocturnal seizures only, etc.) CONCLUSION: Many English-speaking nations in the world do not have explicit rules and regulations about driving eligibility and restrictions for persons with seizures. International scientific organizations should do more to provide appropriate and personalized guidelines for different scenarios of seizures, so the governments can adopt appropriate regulations.

Identification and Characterization of Pure Sleep Epilepsy in a Cohort of Patients With a First Seizure

OBJECTIVES

To study the development of pure sleep epilepsy (PSE) after a first-ever seizure from sleep in adults.

METHODS

Prospective observational study of patients seen at a tertiary hospital-based first seizure clinic between 2000 and 2011. Adults with a first-ever unprovoked seizure from sleep were consecutively recruited. All patients were followed up at least once after the initial seizure and those not requiring regular clinical review were contacted every one to two years. The timing and pattern of subsequent seizures as well as potential predictors of future awake seizures were analyzed.

RESULTS

239 adults with a first-ever unprovoked seizure from sleep were identified, 61% male; mean age 43 years (range 14-88 years) and median follow-up of 8.8 years (range 2 months -18 years). Of the 174 patients who had recurrent seizures, 130 patients (75%) had their second seizure from sleep, and of these, 76 of 94 (81%) also had their third seizure from sleep. 89 patients (37%) developed awake seizures during follow up. In half of these patients, the awake seizure occurred within two years of the initial seizure. The risk of an awake seizure within 1 year of a first-ever seizure from sleep was 13.9% (95%CI 9.4-18.3), falling to 2.0-5.3% per year after 3 years. The risks of an awake seizure within 1 year of a second or third consecutive sleep seizure were 9.9% (95%CI 4.6-15.3) and 8.7% (95%CI 2.0-15.4) respectively, and similarly decreased with time.

CONCLUSION

Most initial seizure recurrences after a first-ever sleep seizure occur during sleep. Whilst over one third eventually had awake seizures, the annual risk of an awake seizure was ≤14% and decreased with time, albeit with a small ongoing risk of between 2 and 5% per year. These findings may be utilized in counselling patients with seizures from sleep and inform driving recommendations.

Risk of seizure recurrence in people with single seizures and early epilepsy - Model development and external validation

•

Model predicts risk of seizure recurrence after single fit or epilepsy diagnosis.

•

Model performs well in independent data.

•

Future work required to ensure the model is adopted in clinical practice.

•

Model can improve the lives of people with single seizures and early epilepsy.

Purpose

Following a single seizure, or recent epilepsy diagnosis, it is difficult to balance risk of medication side effects with the potential to prevent seizure recurrence. A prediction model was developed and validated enabling risk stratification which in turn informs treatment decisions and individualises counselling.

Methods

Data from a randomised controlled trial was used to develop a prediction model for risk of seizure recurrence following a first seizure or diagnosis of epilepsy. Time-to-event data was modelled via Cox's proportional hazards regression. Model validity was assessed via discrimination and calibration using the original dataset and also using three external datasets – National General Practice Survey of Epilepsy (NGPSE), Western Australian first seizure database (WA) and FIRST (Italian dataset of people with first tonic-clonic seizures).

Results

People with neurological deficit, focal seizures, abnormal EEG, not indicated for CT/MRI scan, or not immediately treated have a significantly higher risk of seizure recurrence. Discrimination was fair and consistent across the datasets (c-statistics: 0.555 (NGPSE); 0.558 (WA); 0.597 (FIRST)). Calibration plots showed good agreement between observed and predicted probabilities in NGPSE at one and three years. Plots for WA and FIRST showed poorer agreement with the model underpredicting risk in WA, and over-predicting in FIRST. This was resolved following model recalibration.

Conclusion

The model performs well in independent data especially when recalibrated. It should now be used in clinical practice as it can improve the lives of people with single seizures and early epilepsy by enabling targeted treatment choices and more informed patient counselling.

Healthcare utilization and cost outcomes for a multicenter first seizure and new onset epilepsy clinic

RATIONALE

A First Seizure/New Onset Epilepsy (FS/NOE) protocol was implemented to ensure proper evaluation by an epileptologist and improve overall care for patients. We compared healthcare utilization and cost incurred by patients pre and post protocol implementation.

METHODS

Clinical data were retrospectively collected from the EMR and cost data from the financial database. Patients were identified by FS event and grouped into either the pre-implementation (pre-FSC) or post-implementation cohort (post-FSC). Pre-FSC patients were seen between January 2014-December 2015 and post-FSC between March 2016-January 2018. Utilization outcomes include time from FS to neurology appointment, MRI, and electroencephalogram (EEG). Cost outcomes included the annualized median difference in pre versus post costs for ER, inpatient, outpatient or ambulatory, and total hospital services. Cost and utilization outcomes were collected within 90 days or 6 months post first-seizure event. Pre and post cohorts were compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazard models for time-to-event outcomes, multivariable median regression models for cost differences and negative binomial regression models for utilization analyses. Models were adjusted for age, sex, health insurance, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

One-hundred and fifty six patients were included with 84 (53.8%) pre- and 72 (46.2%) post-FSC patients. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression results indicated post-FSC patients had significantly faster time-to-first neurology appointment (5.0 vs. 20.9 days, p < .001; Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR) = 5.98, p < .001), time-to-MRI (9.0 vs. 27.0 days; p = 0.005; HR = 1.88, p = .021) and EEG (3.6 vs. 48.6 days, p < .001; HR = 9.01, p < .001). A total of 138 patients had at least one cost in the financial database. For 6-month follow-up period, post-FSC patients had higher adjusted all-cause total median costs (+$830, p = 0.009) and outpatient costs (+$1203, p < .001) but lower ED costs (-245, p = 0.073), not significant. Results were similar for seizure-related costs. Similarly, Post-FSC patients had a significantly higher likelihood of all-cause (Adjusted Rate Ratio (ARR) = 1.41, p = .029) and outpatient utilization (ARR = 1.72, p = .008) but lower ED utilization (ARR = 0.54, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of the FSC decreased time to evaluation by a neurologist and time to diagnostic workup. Ultimately, total healthcare costs and ambulatory costs increased but ED costs and utilization were reduced. It is our hypothesis that faster access to initial care and diagnosis would result in better control of seizures and reduce long-term costs and utilization. Further research over a longer duration of time across a broader population is needed to evaluate the full implications of an epilepsy specialist-populated FSC.

Driving eligibility: Implications of studies on seizure recurrence risk

BACKGROUND

Driving is one of the most important issues for patients with seizures. The 2009 European directive provides a framework for evaluating standard situations in assessing the ability to drive. Such a framework may not be sufficient for individual scenarios.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

To analyse current data on seizure recurrence risks (RcRs) focusing on their potential implications for car driving issues (group 1).

METHODS

We evaluated current studies and meta-analyses on RcR.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis of seizure-free patients who withdrew their medication (Lamberink et al Lancet Neurology 2017;16:523) created a nomogram and a web-based tool that allow estimating RcR in individual patients and thus to identify those in whom medication withdrawal is possible without the common driving ban during withdrawal. The 2-year prediction model of that meta-analysis has been recently externally tested and confirmed. A meta-analysis of patients with a first unprovoked seizure (Bonnett et al PloS ONE 2014;9:e99063) determined to which extent RcRs depend on established risk factors. The seizure-free period required to restart driving could be tailored according to the individual RcR.

CONCLUSION

These current studies allow estimating individual RcR more precisely and thus modifying periods of driving bans beyond the existing guidelines.

Is a separate clinical pathway for first seizures justified? Appraisal of the first seizure pathway at a tertiary neuroscience centre

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the clinical characteristics, final diagnosis, investigation results, management, response to anti-seizure medications (ASMs) and clinical outcomes of individuals assessed in a First Seizure service over a 5-year period.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 772 individuals who were clinically assessed in a dedicated First Seizure service at National Hospital for Neurology & Neurosurgery (NHNN), Queen Square over a 5-year period.

RESULTS

772 individuals were assessed following a suspected or reported first seizure (median age of 54, average age of 39.4, range 16-96). 393 (50.9 %) were ultimately diagnosed with a definite seizure of which 183 (46.5 %) had experienced seizures previously which had not been recognised or diagnosed. 250 (32 %) had vasovagal syncope and 69 (18.2 %) were diagnosed with psychogenic non-epileptic seizures. EEGs in 16.6 % of individuals who had a first unprovoked seizure demonstrated epileptiform discharges, whilst 33.6 % had abnormal MRI findings felt to be clinically relevant.

CONCLUSIONS

Seizure mimics represent a significant proportion of attendees to a 'first seizure' service. Improved recognition and more education of this issue could facilitate earlier management of these other diagnostic entities and ensure that only appropriate cases are referred to the first seizure service. Almost half of 'first seizure' cases had previous seizures, highlighting the importance of obtaining this relevant history and in reviewing ASM-naive individuals in a timely manner with the primary aim of preventing further recurrences.

Factors associated with serious vehicular accidents: A cross-sectional study in hospital emergency rooms

AIMS

Pictograms on medicine boxes warn of potential drug-related driving hazard; we studied their association with serious accidents.

METHODS

Prospective study in emergency departments of the hospitals in Bordeaux and Périgueux (France), of drivers with serious (admitted at least 24 hours) or nonserious vehicular accidents. Minors, passengers, pedestrians or subjects incapable of answering an interview were excluded. Interviews ascertained driver and accident characteristics, use of drugs with or without pictograms, use of alcohol and abuse substances, sleepiness, distractions, and mind wandering at the time of the accident, RESULTS: Between 18 October 2016 and 26 December 2018, 1200 of the 6212 drivers admitted to the hospital emergency rooms, 741 nonserious, 459 serious, were interviewed. Serious accidents were associated with male sex (odds ratio 1.89, 95% confidence interval [1.36-2.64]), age above 60 years (3.64 [2.21-6.00]), driving on local roads (3.34 [2.34-4.76]), driving a motorcycle (3.39 [2.29-5.00]), having drunk alcohol within 6 hours (2.89 [1.85-4.51]) and using a drug with a pictogram during the 24 hours previous to the accident (1.57 [1.06-2.32]). From 207 police reports, 101 drivers were not responsible, and 106 were responsible, associated with age below 40 years, driving in overcast or rainy weather (2.62 [1.29-5.33]), on local roads (3.89 [1.90-7.95]), and use of at least 1 pictogram drug in the previous week (3.12 [1.31-7.41]).

CONCLUSION

The known risks of alcohol and pictogram drugs, of riding motorcycles and using local roads were confirmed. As measured, behavioural sleepiness did not predict accidents.

Fitness to drive in seizure and epilepsy: A protocol for Iranian clinicians

Driving restriction is a well-known undesirable consequence of epilepsy and causes significant problems regarding independence and employment for epileptic patients. Many countries all over the world have provided comprehensive protocols in this regard with the aim of providing the possibility of less restricted, but safe driving for epileptic patients and also providing the opportunity for uniform decision-making for clinicians. However, the available fitness to drive protocol in Iran still lacks sufficient details and clinicians might encounter serious problems in terms of the driving issue in epileptic patients. In order to provide a uniform protocol containing adequate practical data, a systematic review of literature addressing guidelines about driving and epilepsy and driving laws of different countries for epileptic patients was performed and, after consideration of cultural issues, a practical protocol for Iranian neurologists was suggested.

"Chance Takers Are Accident Makers": Are Patients With Epilepsy Really Taking a Chance When They Drive?

This review compiles scientific data about the real dangers faced by people with epilepsy (PWE) who drive. Those include risks of motor vehicle accidents (MVA) in PWE as compared with controls (individuals without epilepsy) and as compared with persons with other medical conditions that impact fitness to drive. Data regarding Accident rates as related to seizure free intervals (SFI), single vs. multiple seizure events, and/or antiseizure drug (ASD) taper and reintroduction are discussed. Variation in state, national, and international laws and guidance for non-commercial and commercial drivers is highlighted, along with some related reasons for driving restrictions. The review concludes by emphasizing the importance of physicians educating patients about local driving laws and about risks of ASD non-adherence. The need for a broader, multi-stakeholder re-examination of driving regulations for PWE is noted.

Who is driving and who is prone to have traffic accidents? A systematic review and meta-analysis among people with seizures

INTRODUCTION

Epilepsy influences the ability to drive. We aimed to systematically summarize factors associated with driving, holding a driver's license, and traffic accidents among people with seizures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eight databases were searched (from their inception to 27 June 2018). We included all published observational studies, except for case reports and studies with fewer than 50 participants. Pooled mean differences and pooled risk ratios (pRRs) with corresponding confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random effects.

RESULTS

Data were available from 18 studies, reporting a wide range of factors. There were frequent biases associated with cross-sectional study designs, selection bias, poor statistical quality, small samples, and lack of validation of models. The following six variables were consistently associated with driving: male gender (pRR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.23 to 1.64), being in paid work (pRR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.46 to 2.03), married (pRR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.57), older age at seizure onset or diagnosis (pooled mean difference: 4.83; 95% CI: 0.48 to 9.18 years), less frequent seizures (fewer than monthly, pRR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.56), and taking one or no antiepileptic drug (pRR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.63). Lower seizure frequency was also protective for avoiding traffic accidents (pRR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.66).

DISCUSSION

Stable multivariate models to predict driving or traffic accidents among people with seizures have not yet been developed. Current evidence shows that the likelihood of driving is associated with demographic and epilepsy-related factors, while the risk of traffic accidents is associated with seizure frequency.

Driving status of patients with generalized spike-wave on EEG but no clinical seizures

Generalized spike-wave discharges (SWDs) are the hallmark of generalized epilepsy on the electroencephalogram (EEG). In clinically obvious cases, generalized SWDs produce myoclonic, atonic/tonic, or absence seizures with brief episodes of staring and behavioral unresponsiveness. However, some generalized SWDs have no obvious behavioral effects. A serious challenge arises when patients with no clinical seizures request driving privileges and licensure, yet their EEG shows generalized SWD. Specialized behavioral testing has demonstrated prolonged reaction times or missed responses during SWD, which may present a driving hazard even when patients or family members do not notice any deficits. On the other hand, some SWDs are truly asymptomatic in which case driving privileges should not be restricted. Clinicians often decide on driving privileges based on SWD duration or other EEG features. However, there are currently no empirically-validated guidelines for distinguishing generalized SWDs that are "safe" versus "unsafe" for driving. Here, we review the clinical presentation of generalized SWD and recent work investigating mechanisms of behavioral impairment during SWD with implications for driving safety. As a future approach, computational analysis of large sets of EEG data during simulated driving utilizing machine learning could lead to powerful methods to classify generalized SWD as safe vs. unsafe. This may ultimately provide more objective EEG criteria to guide decisions on driving safety in people with epilepsy.

Driving and Epilepsy: a Review of Important Issues

Driving restrictions in people with epilepsy (PWE) is a highly contentious topic. The fundamental difficulty lies in achieving a balance between safety and practicality. The aim of this review is to provide an overview, history, and rationale behind current laws regarding driving restriction in PWE. We also discuss recent findings that may be helpful to practitioners during individual discussions with PWE including seizure recurrence risk after first seizure, recurrent seizure, and anticonvulsant with drawl and driving restrictions in patients with psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES).

Risk of a seizure recurrence after a breakthrough seizure and the implications for driving: further analysis of the standard versus new antiepileptic drugs (SANAD) randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

A breakthrough seizure is one occurring after at least 12 months seizure freedom while on treatment. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) allows an individual to return to driving once they have been seizure free for 12 months following a breakthrough seizure. This is based on the assumption that the risk of a further seizure in the next 12 months has dropped <20%. This analysis considers whether the prescribed 1 year off driving following a breakthrough seizure is sufficient for this and stratifies risk according to clinical characteristics. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTIONS AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The multicentre UK-based Standard versus New Antiepileptic Drugs (SANAD) study was a randomised controlled trial assessing standard and new antiepileptic drugs for patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. For participants aged at least 16 with a breakthrough seizure, data have been analysed to estimate the annual seizure recurrence risk following a period of 6, 9 and 12 months seizure freedom. Regression modelling was used to investigate how antiepileptic drug treatment and a number of clinical factors influence the risk of seizure recurrence.

RESULTS

At 12 months following a breakthrough seizure, the overall unadjusted risk of a recurrence over the next 12 months is lower than 20%, risk 17% (95% CI 15% to 19%). However, some patient subgroups have been identified which have an annual recurrence risk significantly greater than 20% after an initial 12-month seizure-free period following a breakthrough seizure.

CONCLUSIONS

This reanalysis of SANAD provides estimates of seizure recurrence risks following a breakthrough seizure that will inform policy and guidance about regaining an ordinary driving licence. Further guidance is needed as to how such data should be used.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

SANAD is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register ISRCTN38354748.

Evaluation of the first seizure patient: Key points in the history and physical examination

PURPOSE

This review will present the history and physical examination as the launching point of the first seizure evaluation, from the initial characterization of the event, to the exclusion of alternative diagnoses, and then to the determination of specific acute or remote causes. Clinical features that may distinguish seizures from alternative diagnoses are discussed in detail, followed by a discussion of acute and remote first seizure etiologies.

METHODS

This review article is based on a discretionary selection of English language articles retrieved by a literature search in the PubMed database, and the authors' clinical experience.

RESULTS

The first seizure is a dramatic event with often profound implications for patients and family members. The initial clinical evaluation focuses on an accurate description of the spell to confirm the diagnosis, along with careful scrutiny for previously unrecognized seizures that would change the diagnosis more definitively to one of epilepsy. The first seizure evaluation rests primarily on the clinical history, and to a lesser extent, the physical examination.

CONCLUSIONS

Even in the era of digital EEG recording and neuroimaging, the initial clinical evaluation remains essential for the diagnosis, treatment, and prognostication of the first seizure.

Bias in counseling of seizure patients following a transient impairment of consciousness: differential adherence to driver fitness guidelines

PURPOSE

To determine primary care physicians' counseling as well as patients' driving behaviors following seizure and non-seizure events impairing consciousness in the community.

METHODS

Patients attending a rapid-referral first seizure clinic were entered into the study if they were deemed medically-unfit to drive according to national guidelines for driving licensure: had experienced a seizure or an unexplained episode of lost consciousness, and had a valid driver's license at the time of their index event. Risk of physician counseling in the community regarding driving cessation in the interval between initial primary care assessment and neurological consultation was examined as a primary outcome, and patient driving cessation was examined as a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

106 of 192 (55%) patients attending clinic met guideline criteria requiring driver fitness counseling in the primary care community, and 89 patients (46%) were deemed medically-unfit to drive following the initial specialist consultation appointment. Among medically unfit driver cases, 73% were ultimately deemed to have experienced a seizure and 27% had experienced a non-seizure event (e.g. syncope, PNES). Driver fitness counseling was more likely for seizure than non-seizure cases (unadjusted odds ratio: 4.14, p<0.05), as was patient driving cessation (5.10, p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Physician compliance with clinical practice guidelines appears strongly biased when counseling about driving following an episode of transient impairment in consciousness. The failure of the primary care medical community to apply driver fitness counseling equitably to both seizure and non-seizure drivers may have ramifications upon public safety or conversely disease-related quality-of-life.

When is it safe to return to driving following first-ever seizure?

OBJECTIVES

The risk of recurrence following a first-ever seizure is 40-50%, warranting driving restriction during the early period of highest risk. This restriction must be balanced against the occupational, educational and social limitations that result from patients being ineligible to drive. The recommended duration of non-driving after a first seizure varies widely between jurisdictions, influenced by various factors including the community perception of an acceptable relative level of risk for an accident (the accident risk ratio; ARR). Driving restrictions may be based on individualised risk assessments or across-the-board guidelines, but these approaches both require accurate data on the risk of seizure recurrence.

METHODS

1386 patients with first-ever seizure were prospectively analysed. Seizure recurrence was evaluated using survival analysis. The duration of non-driving required for a range of risks of seizure recurrence and ARRs was calculated. Additionally, the actual occurrence of seizures while driving was prospectively determined during follow-up.

RESULTS

For a risk of seizure recurrence to fall to 2.5% per month, corresponding to a monthly risk of a seizure while driving of 1.04 per thousand and an ARR of 2.6, non-driving periods of 8 months are required for unprovoked first-ever seizure, and 5 months for provoked first-ever seizure. Of patients with a seizure recurrence, 14 (2%) occurred while driving, with the monthly risk falling to less than 1/1000 after 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data provide a quantitative approach to decisions regarding a return to driving in patients with first-ever provoked or unprovoked seizure.

First Seizure While Driving (FSWD) — An Underestimated Phenomenon?

Background:

Seizures while driving are a well known occurrence in established epilepsy and have significant impact on driving privileges. There is no data available on patients who experience their first (diagnosed) seizure while driving (FSWD).

Method:

Out of 311 patients presenting to the Halifax First Seizure Clinic between 2008 and 2011, 158 patients met the criteria of a first seizure (FS) or drug-naïve, newly diagnosed epilepsy (NDE). A retrospective chart review was conducted. FSWD was evaluated for 1) prevalence, 2) clinical presentation, 3) coping strategies, and 4) length of time driving before seizure occurrence.

Results:

The prevalence of FSWD was 8.2%. All 13 patients experienced impaired consciousness. Eleven patients had generalized tonic-clonic seizures, one starting with a déjà-vu evolving to visual aura and a complex partial seizure; three directly from visual auras. Two patients had complex partial seizures, one starting with an autonomic seizure. In response to their seizure, patients reported they were i) able to actively stop the car (n=4, three had visual auras), ii) not able to stop the car resulting in accident (n=7), or iii) passenger was able to pull the car over (n=2). One accident was fatal to the other party. Twelve out of 13 patients had been driving for less than one hour.

Discussion:

FSWD is frequent and possibly underrecognized. FSWD often lead to accidents, which occur less if preceded by simple partial seizures. Pathophysiological mechanisms remain uncertain; it is still speculative if complex visuo-motor tasks required while driving play a role in this scenario.

External validation of a prognostic model for seizure recurrence following a first unprovoked seizure and implications for driving

Objective

In the United Kingdom and other European Union countries guidelines for driving following a first unprovoked seizure require the risk of another seizure in the next year to be less than 20%. Using data from one clinical trial, we previously developed a prognostic model to inform driving guidelines. The objective of this work is to externally validate our published model and demonstrate its generalisability.

Methods

A cohort of 620 people with a first unprovoked seizure was used to develop the original model which included variables for aetiology, first degree relative with epilepsy, seizures only while asleep, electroencephalogram, computed tomography or magnetic resonance scan result, and treatment policy. The validation cohorts consisted of 274 (United Kingdom), 305 (Italy), and 847 (Australia) people. The model was evaluated using discrimination and calibration methods. A covariate, missing from the Italian dataset, was handled via five imputation methods. Following external validation, the model was fitted to a pooled population comprising all validation datasets and the development dataset. The model was stratified by dataset.

Results

The model generalised relatively well. All methods of imputation performed fairly similarly. At six months, the risk of a seizure recurrence following a first ever seizure, based on the pooled datasets, is 15% (95% CI: (12% to 18%)) for patients who are treated immediately and 18% (95% CI: (15 to 21%)) otherwise. Individuals can be reliably stratified into risk groups according to the clinical factors included in the model.

Significance

Our prognostic model, used to inform driving regulations, has been validated and consequently has been proven as a valuable tool for predicting risk of seizure recurrence following a first seizure in people with various combinations of risk factors. Additionally, there is evidence to support one worldwide overall prognostic model for risk of second seizure following a first.

Reviewing the medical literature: five notable articles in general internal medicine from 2010 and 2011

Although the ongoing information explosion within medicine is indisputably beneficial, it is difficult to stay abreast of the large volume of new information being published in the peer-reviewed and grey literature. Practical strategies to organize the swelling tide of medical literature are essential for providers to recognize and incorporate new information into their practice. One strategy for managing new information is the traditional annual review, in which selected, appraised articles are presented for general consumption. Here, we present five notable articles for general internal medicine published from 1 Sept. 2010 to 31 Aug. 2011, with focused summaries of their key findings and supporting clinical vignettes to highlight their significance.