Dataset Information

Epilepsy and lockdown: A survey of patients normally attending a Spanish centre.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Lockdown due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic became a challenge to maintain care for patients with epilepsy; we aimed to find out how the pandemic affected them.

Methods

We sent an online 22-item questionnaire to patients from our outpatient clinic, a reference centre in Spain for drug-resistant epilepsy, inquiring about the effects of lockdown, from March to May 2020.

Results

We sent the survey to 627 patients; 312 (58% women) sent a complete response and were included. Of all respondents, 57% took >2 antiseizure medications. One-third of respondents (29%) declared an associated cognitive or motor disability. A minority had confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 (1.92%). Seizure frequency remained like usual in 56% of patients, while 31.2% reported an increase. Less than 10% needed emergent assistance. Almost half reported anxiety or depression, and 25% increased behavioural disorders. Mood (F: 5.40; p: 0.002) and sleep disorders (F = 2.67; p: 0.05) were associated with increase in seizure frequency. Patients were able to contact their physicians when needed and were open to a future telematic approach to follow-up visits.

Conclusions

Seizure frequency and severity remained unchanged in most patients during the lockdown. Mood and sleep disorders were common and associated with seizure worsening. Patients were open to telematic care in the future.

SUBMITTER: Conde Blanco E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7646661 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe purpose of our study was to explore health changes among people with epilepsy (PWE) during a national COVID-19 lockdown in the context of patients' clinical characteristics and their experience of receiving epilepsy-related medical services.MethodsA questionnaire was distributed for adult PWE both online and at a tertiary epilepsy center after the end of a national lockdown in Lithuania. PWE were asked to evaluate their health status during the lockdown and estimate changes in their seizure patterns. Additional questions concerned the accessibility and quality of epilepsy-related consultations.ResultsThe study sample consisted of 143 PWE (59 [41.3%] male, mean age 35.1?±?13.4?years), 94 (65.7%) completed the survey in person, 49 (34.3%) - online. A deterioration in reported physical and mental health during lockdown was observed (Z?=?-4.604, p?<?0.0001 and Z?=?-4.253, p?<?0.0001, respectively) and 22 (15.4%) PWE reported seizure exacerbation. In an ordinal logistic regression model (analysis of data from all participants), baseline seizure frequency (b?=?0.413, p?=?0.031), reported physical health before lockdown (b?=?-0.462, p?=?0.031) and the ease of proper antiepileptic drug (AED) use during the imposed restrictions (b?=?-0.535, p?=?0.006) were statistically significant variables associated with changes in seizure frequency. The latter were not affected by modifications in AED use (Mann-Whitney U?=?1127.0, p?=?0.307) irrespective of the data collection method. With teleconsultations being predominant during the lockdown, an overall decline in the quality of epilepsy-related consultations was observed (Z?=?-2.895, p?=?0.004). Among all participants, 46 (32.2%) lost an epilepsy-related consultation or medical service because of the lockdown. This loss was found to be associated with seizure exacerbation (Mann-Whitney U?=?1622.5, p?=?0.046).ConclusionOur study indicates that a national COVID-19 lockdown may have led to worse seizure control and health status in some PWE. Easy access to AEDs and their appropriate use may be especially useful to prevent seizure exacerbation during strict COVID-19 restrictions. The quality and accessibility of remote epilepsy-related consultations was suboptimal and may require further improvement during disruption of in-person services.

Project description:BackgroundCharacteristics of patients receiving long-term opioid therapy (? 6 months) for chronic noncancer pain are poorly understood. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of this patient population to explore demographic variables, pain relief, functional improvement, adverse effects and impressions of an educational pamphlet on long-term opioid therapy.MethodsWe invited 260 adult patients presenting to the Pain Management Centre at the Hamilton General Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, with chronic noncancer pain to complete a 20-item survey. Patients who presented for procedures were not eligible for our study. We used adjusted logistic regression models to explore the association between higher morphine equivalent dose and pain relief, functional improvement, adverse events and employment.ResultsThe survey was completed by 170 patients (a response rate of 65.4%). Most respondents (87.6%; 149 out of 170) were receiving long-term opioid therapy, and the median morphine equivalent dose was 180 mg daily (interquartile range 60-501). Most respondents reported at least modest (> 40%) opioid-specific pain relief (74.1%; 106 out of 143) and functional improvement (67.6%; 96 out of 142), and 46.5% (66 out of 142) reported troublesome adverse effects that they attributed to their opioid use. Most patients were receiving disability benefits (68.3%; 99 out of 145) and, among those respondents who were less than 65 years of age (90.3%; 131 out of 145), 10 (7.6%) were working full-time and 14 (10.7%) part-time. In our adjusted analyses, higher morphine equivalent dose was associated with greater self-reported functional improvement (odds ratio [OR] 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-1.96) but not with pain relief (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.00-1.89), troublesome adverse effects (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.70-1.20) or employment (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56-1.15).InterpretationMost outpatients receiving long-term opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain at a tertiary care chronic pain clinic reported at least moderate pain relief and functional improvement; however, adverse effects were common and few patients were engaged in competitive employment.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Maternal mortality is high in Loreto, Peru, but can be reduced by high quality antenatal care. Indicators for the quality of antenatal care received include the timing (with respect to gestational age) and number of antenatal appointments attended, the delivery of antenatal services and health information, and women's perceptions about their care. This study investigated these indicators amongst women receiving antenatal care in predominantly the San Juan Bautista district of Iquitos, Loreto. This was to identify areas for improvement through comparison with antenatal guidelines published by the Ministry of Health, Peru, and the World Health Organization. METHODS:A total of 134 women were recruited at the Centro de Salud, San Juan-a primary care centre in Iquitos. Information about the delivery of antenatal services and the number of and gestational ages at appointments attended was collected from 121/134 women's hand-held antenatal cards. The delivery of health information and women's perceptions about their antenatal care were investigated through questionnaires (133/134 completed). Descriptive statistics, such as frequencies and valid percentages, were determined. RESULTS:Hand-held antenatal cards revealed that 52.9% of participants began their antenatal care in the first trimester. Compared to national guidelines, 42.1% attended appointments at recommended gestational ages and no women received all recommended antenatal services. Most women received information about identifying complications in pregnancy and health and lifestyle topics. Over 85% of women reported satisfaction with their antenatal care. CONCLUSIONS:Timely antenatal attendance and delivery of services should be encouraged to meet national and global standards. Although all services were not delivered in a combined manner according to national guidelines, individual services were mostly delivered to a high standard and therefore a high proportion of women were satisfied with their antenatal care.

Project description:To educate physicians about appropriate acute migraine treatment guidelines by determining (1) where headache patients were first prescribed opioids and barbiturates, and (2) the characteristics of the patient population who had been prescribed opioids and barbiturates.Several specialty societies issued recommendations that caution against the indiscriminate use of opioids or barbiturate containing medications for the treatment of migraine. These medications are still being prescribed in various medical settings and could put headache specialists in a difficult position when patients request these agents.Patients presenting to a headache center comprised of eight physicians were asked to complete a survey that assessed headache types, comorbid conditions, and whether they had ever been prescribed opioids or barbiturates. If they responded affirmatively to the latter question, they were asked about the prescribing doctor, medication effectiveness, and whether they were currently on the medication. Data collection took place over a one month period.Two hundred forty-four patients were given the survey and 218 of these patients completed it. The predominant diagnosis was migraine (83.9%). More than half of the patients reported having been prescribed an opioid (54.8%) or a barbiturate (56.7%). About one fifth were on opioids (19.4%) or barbiturates (20.7%) at the time of completing the survey. Most patients reported being on opioids for more than 2 years (24.6%) or less than one week (32.1%). The reasons most frequently cited for stopping opioids were that the medications did not help (30.9%) or that they saw a new doctor who would not prescribe them (29.4%). Among patients who had previously been on barbiturates, 32.2% had been on these for over 2 years. Most patients (61.8%) stopped barbiturates because they did not find the medication helpful, while 17.6% said they saw a new doctor who would not prescribe them. The physician specialty most frequently cited as being the first prescriber for opioids was emergency medicine (20.2%) with family doctors and general neurologists the next groups at 17.7% each. General neurologists were the most frequent (37.8%) first prescribers of barbiturates.Approximately 20% of patients presenting to a headache center reported current use of opioids and/or barbiturates. ED physicians were reported to be the most frequent first prescribers of opioids and general neurologists were the most frequent first prescribers of barbiturates. Taken as a whole, these data provide a useful snapshot of the wide variety of physician specialties that might benefit from additional education on the appropriate use of opioids and barbiturate-containing medications in patients with headaches.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the feasibility and optimal design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of Seizure First Aid Training For Epilepsy (SAFE).DesignPilot RCT with embedded microcosting.SettingThree English hospital emergency departments (EDs).ParticipantsPatients aged ?16 with established epilepsy reporting ?2 ED visits in the prior 12 months and their significant others (SOs).InterventionsPatients (and their SOs) were randomly allocated (1:1) to SAFE plus treatment-as-usual (TAU) or TAU alone. SAFE is a 4-hour group course.Main outcome measuresTwo criteria evaluated a definitive RCT's feasibility: (1) ?20% of eligible patients needed to be consented into the pilot trial; (2) routine data on use of ED over the 12?months postrandomisation needed securing for ?75%. Other measures included eligibility, ease of obtaining routine data, availability of self-report ED data and comparability, SAFE's effect and intervention cost.ResultsOf ED attendees with a suspected seizure, 424 (10.6%) patients were eligible; 53 (12.5%) patients and 38 SOs consented. Fifty-one patients (and 37 SOs) were randomised. Routine data on ED use at 12?months were secured for 94.1% patients. Self-report ED data were available for 66.7% patients. Patients reported more visits compared with routine data. Most (76.9%) patients randomised to SAFE received it and no related serious adverse events occurred. ED use at 12 months was lower in the SAFE+TAU?arm compared with TAU alone, but not significantly (rate ratio=0.62, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.17). A definitive trial would need ~674 patient participants and ~39 recruitment sites. Obtaining routine data was challenging, taking ~8.5 months.ConclusionsIn satisfying only one predetermined 'stop/go' criterion, a definitive RCT is not feasible. The low consent rate in the pilot trial raises concerns about a definitive trial's finding's external validity and means it would be expensive to conduct. Research is required into how to optimise recruitment from the target population.Trial registration numberISRCTN13871327.