The next level of care in epilepsy: Delays, more delays, delays everywhere

Time to evaluation and characteristics of patients evaluated at epilepsy centers within an integrated health care delivery system

OBJECTIVE

Rapid patient referral to epilepsy centers may facilitate subsequent disease-modifying surgical and non-surgical treatments. Delays of 15-18 years have been reported from time of epilepsy diagnosis to surgical evaluation in some settings, though patterns for timely guideline-concordant referrals within integrated care models are not well known and could inform strategies for optimizing guideline-concordant access.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 1088 patients undergoing epilepsy center evaluation from January 1, 2008 through June 30, 2023 in a Northern California integrated healthcare delivery system (IDS) with a Level 4 Epilepsy Center. Using electronic health record (EHR) data, we summarized time from diagnosis and other major care time points until first visit at the epilepsy center. A multivariate linear model was used to evaluate the relationship of select demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical characteristics with the time to first epilepsy center visit.

RESULTS

The mean times to epilepsy center visit from first prescription of an anti-seizure medication (ASM), diagnosis of epilepsy or seizures, and first visit with a general neurologist, were 3.9 years (SD = 4.5), 3.2 years (SD = 3.2) and 2.7 years (SD = 3.2), respectively, for the full cohort of patients prescribed any number of ASMs. Comparable time frames were seen for patients prescribed two or more ASMs at the time of first visit. Significantly longer time to epilepsy center visit was seen in patients with multiple ASMs prescribed, a concordant diagnosis of developmental delay, and those age 40 and above. Longer times to epilepsy center visit were not seen among patients with psychiatric comorbidities, public health insurance coverage, and among patients in traditionally underserved groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients evaluated at an epilepsy clinic within an IDS system did so within less than four years of diagnosis and initial treatment, with few disparities by demographics or comorbidities. Future studies can identify specific health system features that are key to shorter time frames to test transferable strategies to reduce time to epilepsy centers.

Health care resource utilization and costs before and after epilepsy surgery

OBJECTIVE

To describe the demographics of epilepsy surgery utilization and its impact on health care resource use.

METHODS

Retrospective descriptive study using the MarketScan commercial claims database. We studied children and adults who underwent epilepsy surgery in the USA in the period 2006-2019. Our main outcome was health care resource utilization.

RESULTS

Among the 87,368 patients with refractory epilepsy, 2,011 (2.3%) patients underwent resective epilepsy surgery, 188 (0.2%) patients underwent partial or total hemispherectomy, and 183 (0.2%) patients underwent corpus callosotomy. The proportion of patients undergoing epilepsy surgery has barely increased in the period 2006 to 2019. The year of resective epilepsy surgery was associated with high healthcare costs per person-year [median (p₂₅-p₇₅): $140,322 ($88,749-$225,862)], but healthcare costs per person-year substantially decreased in the 5 years after compared to the 5 years before the year of resective epilepsy surgery [$7,691 ($2,738-$22,092) versus $18,750 ($7,361-$47,082), p-value < 0.0001]. This result held in all resective epilepsy surgery subgroups: children, adults, temporal, extratemporal, subdural EEG monitoring, stereoEEG monitoring, and no intracranial monitoring. Similarly, the year of hemispherectomy was associated with high healthcare costs per person-year [$260,983 ($154,791-$453,986)], but healthcare costs per person-year substantially decreased in the 5 years after compared to the 5 years before the year of hemispherectomy [$26,834 ($12,842-$52,627) versus $54,596 ($19,547-$136,412), p-value < 0.0001]. In contrast, the year of corpus callosotomy was associated with high healthcare costs per person-year [$162,399 ($108,150-$253,156)], but healthcare costs per person-year did not substantially decrease in the 5 years after than in the 5 years before the year of corpus callosotomy [$25,464 ($10,764-$69,338) versus $36,221 ($12,841-$85,747), p-value = 0.2142].

CONCLUSION

In privately insured patients in the USA, resective epilepsy surgery and hemispherectomy substantially decrease healthcare utilization in subsequent years. Epilepsy surgery may help contain costs in the field of epilepsy.

Diagnostic utility of pediatric epilepsy monitoring unit: Retrospective single center study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate drug resistance epilepsy (DRE) patients with persistent seizures after using of standard antiepileptic drugs. This single center study aimed to investigate the utility of Epilepsy Monitoring Unit (EMU) resulted in a definitive diagnosis.

METHODS

This was an observational retrospective study in 323 children who were admitted to the EMU for evaluation between 2012 and 2020.

RESULTS

Of the 323 patients, 168 (52.01%) were males. The most common referral for EMU were better characterization 91 (28.17%) and pre-surgical evaluation 56 (17.3%). Of the participants, 273 (84.5%) had seizures one to 2 times per day. At discharge, 75.5% of admissions received a definitive diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

The EMU admission for pediatric epilepsy patients is very important for early accurate diagnosis and management with surgery for those consider DRE patients.

Epilepsy Treatment Complacency in Patients, Caregivers, and Health Care Professionals

Objective

To explore the perspectives of adult patients with epilepsy, caregivers, and health care professionals (HCPs) on treatment for seizures and treatment decisions, we developed and administered the STEP Survey (Seize the Truth of Epilepsy Perceptions).

Methods

Participants were recruited from online panel M3 and by Rare Patient Voice and completed the self-administered online STEP Survey. Analysis of variance and chi-square tests were used for group comparisons.

Results

The STEP Survey was completed by 400 adult patients, 201 caregivers, and 258 HCPs. Patients estimated reporting 45% of their seizures to their HCP, whereas caregivers estimated 83% and HCPs estimated 73% were reported. The most common reason for not reporting seizures was that the seizures were not serious enough to mention (patients 57%; caregivers 66%). A minority of patients (25%) and caregivers (30%) were very or extremely likely to ask their HCP about changing antiseizure medication (ASM) in the next 12 months. The HCP was most frequently selected by patients, caregivers, and HCPs as the person who initiates discussion of changing ASMs (patients 73%/caregivers 66%/HCPs 75%) and increasing ASM dosage (patients 77%/caregivers 68%/HCPs 81%). A majority of patients (65%) and caregivers (68%) somewhat or strongly agreed that they do not change ASMs due to fear of getting worse. HCPs perceive this fear less often, stating that 50% of their patients feel afraid when a second ASM was added.

Conclusions

Improved reporting of all seizures, discussion of treatment changes, and the impact of fear on treatment decisions provide opportunities to reduce complacency and optimize patient outcomes.

Establishing a learning healthcare system to improve health outcomes for people with epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

To describe the organization of the Epilepsy Learning Healthcare System (ELHS), a network that aims to improve care outcomes for people with epilepsy (PWE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients and family partners, providers, researchers, epidemiologists, and other leaders collaborated to recruit epilepsy centers and community services organizations into a novel learning network. A multidisciplinary Coordinating Committee developed ELHS governance and organizational structure, including four key planning Cores (Community, Clinical, Quality Improvement, and Data). Through Quality Improvement (QI) methodology grounded in the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) model, including iterative Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) rapid learning cycles and other learning and sharing sessions, ELHS equipped epilepsy centers and community organizations with tools to standardize, measure, share, and improve key aspects of epilepsy care. The initial learning cycles addressed provider documentation of seizure frequency and type, and also screening for medication adherence barriers. Rapid learning cycles have been carried out on these initial measures in both clinical centers and community-based settings. Additional key measures have been defined for quality of life, screening, and treatment for mental health and behavioral comorbidities, transition from pediatric to adult care, counseling for women and girls living with epilepsy, referral for specialty care, and prevention and treatment of seizure clusters and status epilepticus.

RESULTS

It is feasible to adopt a learning healthcare system framework in epilepsy centers and community services organizations. Through structured collaboration between epilepsy care providers, community support organizations, PWE, and their families/caregivers we have identified new opportunities to improve outcomes that are not available in traditional care models.

Epilepsy, dissociative seizures, and mixed: Associations with time to video-EEG

PURPOSE

Video-electroencephalographic monitoring (VEM) is a core component to the diagnosis and evaluation of epilepsy and dissociative seizures (DS)-also known as functional or psychogenic seizures-but VEM evaluation often occurs later than recommended. To understand why delays occur, we compared how patient-reported clinical factors were associated with time from first seizure to VEM (TVEM) in patients with epilepsy, DS or mixed.

METHODS

We acquired data from 1245 consecutive patients with epilepsy, VEM-documented DS or mixed epilepsy and DS. We used multivariate log-normal regression with recursive feature elimination (RFE) to evaluate which of 76 clinical factors interacting with patients' diagnoses were associated with TVEM.

RESULTS

The mean and median TVEM were 14.6 years and 10 years, respectively (IQR 3-23 years). In the multivariate RFE model, the factors associated with longer TVEM in all patients included unemployment and not student status, more antiseizure medications (current and past), concussion, and ictal behavior suggestive of temporal lobe epilepsy. Average TVEM was shorter for DS than epilepsy, particularly for patients with depression, anxiety, migraines, and eye closure. Average TVEM was longer specifically for patients with DS taking more medications, more seizure types, non-metastatic cancer, and with other psychiatric comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

In all patients with seizures, trials of numerous antiseizure medications, unemployment and non-student status was associated with longer TVEM. These associations highlight a disconnect between International League Against Epilepsy practice parameters and observed referral patterns in epilepsy. In patients with dissociative seizures, some but not all factors classically associated with DS reduced TVEM.

Avoiding complacency when treating uncontrolled seizures: why and how?

Introduction: Despite the advances in the diagnosis and treatment of epilepsy, approximately 30% of the patients remain intractable. Uncontrolled seizures have deleterious consequences, including brain damage, cognitive decline, decreased quality of life, and increased mortality.Areas covered: In this article, the authors discuss the treatment gap in patients with intractable epilepsy and the possible mechanisms of drug resistance. The authors provide a treatment algorithm for patients with intractable epilepsy, including non-pharmacological treatment options, such as diet, neurostimulation (vagus nerve stimulation, responsive neurostimulation, and deep brain stimulation), curative surgeries, and palliative surgeries.Expert opinion: There are currently several gaps in the management of seizures. Thirty percent of the 1% of the population with epilepsy is drug resistant. Non-pharmacologic treatments have improved in the last 30 years and continue to do so, but epilepsy surgery in general is still vastly under-utilized. Resective surgery is the only potentially curative procedure. Neurostimulation is generally palliative and is also improving, with smarter types of neurostimulation and paradigms.