Preventing Teratogenicity in Women with Epilepsy.

Over the last 50 years there has been a significant increase in our understanding of the issues faced by women with epilepsy, in both planning and undertaking pregnancy. The risks of teratogenicity associated with antiseizure medications have emerged slowly. The major pregnancy registers have substantially contributed to our knowledge about teratogenic risk associated with the commonly used antiseizure medications. However, there are substantial gaps in our knowledge about the potential risks associated with many third-generation drugs. The remit of the pregnancy registers and the wider research focus has moved beyond anatomical major congenital malformations. Increasingly neurodevelopmental and behavioral abnormalities have been investigated after in utero exposure to antiseizure medications. Public health approaches can help reduce the risk of teratogenicity. However, neurologists still have a vital role in reducing the risk of teratogenicity at an individual level for women attending their clinic. They also have responsibility to ensure that women with epilepsy are aware of the rationale for the different available options.

Neurology teambuilding event.

Good teamwork underpins excellent clinical services; a formal (typically annual) teambuilding event can help to foster a team's sense of purpose and ensure solidity and collaboration between team members. We have held several Epilepsy Unit teambuilding events and use this experience to identify their essential components and suggestions for various workplace-based and leisure activities to include. Other neurology teams might consider similar events to help develop their teamworking.

Study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide versus standard treatments for epilepsy: a comparison of standard and new antiepileptic drugs (SANAD-II).

INTRODUCTION: Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are the mainstay of epilepsy treatment. Over the past 20 years, a number of new drugs have been approved for National Health Service (NHS) use on the basis of information from short-term trials that demonstrate efficacy. These trials do not provide information about the longer term outcomes, which inform treatment policy. This trial will assess the long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of the newer treatment levetiracetam and zonisamide. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a phase IV, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled clinical trial comparing new and standard treatments for patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Arm A of the trial randomised 990 patients with focal epilepsy to standard AED lamotrigine or new AED levetiracetam or zonisamide. Arm B randomised 520 patients with generalised epilepsy to standard AED sodium valproate or new AED levetiracetam. Patients are recruited from UK NHS outpatient epilepsy, general neurology and paediatric clinics. Included patients are aged 5 years or older with two or more spontaneous seizures requiring AED monotherapy, who are not previously treated with AEDs. Patients are followed up for a minimum of 2 years. The primary outcome is time to 12-month remission from seizures. Secondary outcomes include time to treatment failure (including due to inadequate seizure control or unacceptable adverse reactions); time to first seizure; time to 24-month remission; adverse reactions and quality of life. All primary analyses will be on an intention to treat basis. Separate analyses will be undertaken for each arm. Health economic analysis will be conducted from the perspective of the NHS to assess the cost-effectiveness of each AED. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by the North West-Liverpool East REC (Ref. 12/NW/0361). The trial team will disseminate the results through scientific meetings, peer-reviewed publications and patient and public involvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT 2012-001884-64; ISRCTN30294119.

Validating epilepsy diagnoses in routinely collected data.

PURPOSE: Anonymised, routinely-collected healthcare data is increasingly being used for epilepsy research. We validated algorithms using general practitioner (GP) primary healthcare records to identify people with epilepsy from anonymised healthcare data within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank in Wales, UK. METHOD: A reference population of 150 people with definite epilepsy and 150 people without epilepsy was ascertained from hospital records and linked to records contained within SAIL (containing GP records for 2.4 million people). We used three different algorithms, using combinations of GP epilepsy diagnosis and anti-epileptic drug (AED) prescription codes, to identify the reference population. RESULTS: Combining diagnosis and AED prescription codes had a sensitivity of 84% (95% ci 77-90) and specificity of 98% (95-100) in identifying people with epilepsy; diagnosis codes alone had a sensitivity of 86% (80-91) and a specificity of 97% (92-99); and AED prescription codes alone achieved a sensitivity of 92% (70-83) and a specificity of 73% (65-80). Using AED codes only was more accurate in children achieving a sensitivity of 88% (75-95) and specificity of 98% (88-100). CONCLUSION: GP epilepsy diagnosis and AED prescription codes can be confidently used to identify people with epilepsy using anonymised healthcare records in Wales, UK.

Epilepsy and deprivation, a data linkage study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the link between epilepsy and deprivation is due to factors associated with deprivation (social causation) or factors associated with a diagnosis of epilepsy (social drift). METHODS: We reviewed electronic primary health care records from 2004 to 2010, identifying prevalent and incident cases of epilepsy and recording linked deprivation scores. Logistic and Poisson regression models were used to calculate odds ratios and incidence rate ratios. The change in deprivation was measured 10 years after the initial diagnosis of epilepsy for a cohort of people. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2010, 8.1 million patient-years of records were reviewed. Epilepsy prevalence and incidence were significantly associated with deprivation. Epilepsy prevalence ranged from 1.13% (1.07-1.19%) in the most deprived decile to 0.49% (0.45-0.53%) in the least deprived decile (adjusted odds ratio 0.92, p < 0.001). Epilepsy incidence ranged from 40/100,000 per year in the most deprived decile to 19/100,000 per year in the least deprived decile (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.94, p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant change in deprivation index decile 10 years after a new diagnosis of epilepsy (mean difference -0.04, p = 0.85). SIGNIFICANCE: Epilepsy prevalence and incidence are strongly associated with deprivation; the deprivation score remains unchanged 10 years after a diagnosis of epilepsy. These findings suggest that increasing rates of epilepsy in deprived areas are more likely explained by social causation than by social drift. The nature of the association between incident epilepsy and social deprivation needs further exploration.