Psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) resemble epileptic seizures and are often misdiagnosed and mistreated as the latter. Occasionally, epileptic seizures are misdiagnosed and mistreated as PNES. 70% of PNES cases develop between the second and fourth decades of life, but this disease can also affect children and the elderly. At least 10% of patients with PNES have concurrent epileptic seizures or have had epileptic seizures before being diagnosed with PNES. Psychological stress exceeding an individual's coping capacity often precedes PNES. Clinicians can find differentiating between PNES and epileptic seizures challenging. Some clinical features can help distinguish PNES from epileptic seizures, but other features associated with PNES are nonspecific and occur during both types of seizures. Diagnostic errors often result from an overreliance on specific clinical features. Note that no single feature is pathognomonic for PNES. When typical seizures can be recorded, video-EEG is the diagnostic gold standard for PNES, and in such cases a diagnosis can be made with high accuracy. When video-EEG reveals no epileptiform activity before, during or after the ictus, thorough neurological and psychiatric histories can be used to confirm the diagnosis of PNES. In this article, we review the clinical features that can help clinicians differentiate between PNES and epileptic seizures.

Objective: There is evidence for central nervous system complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, including encephalopathy. Encephalopathy caused by or arising from seizures, especially nonconvulsive seizures (NCS), often requires electroencephalography (EEG) monitoring for diagnosis. The prevalence of seizures and other EEG abnormalities among COVID-19-infected patients is unknown. Methods: Medical records and EEG studies of patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 infections over a 2-month period at a single US academic health system (four hospitals) were reviewed to describe the distribution of EEG findings including epileptiform abnormalities (seizures, periodic discharges, or nonperiodic epileptiform discharges). Factors including demographics, remote and acute brain injury, prior history of epilepsy, preceding seizures, critical illness severity scores, and interleukin 6 (IL-6) levels were compared to EEG findings to identify predictors of epileptiform EEG abnormalities. Results: Of 111 patients monitored, most were male (71%), middle-aged or older (median age 64 years), admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU; 77%), and comatose (70%). Excluding 11 patients monitored after cardiac arrest, the most frequent EEG finding was moderate generalized slowing (57%), but epileptiform findings were observed in 30% and seizures in 7% (4% with NCS). Three patients with EEG seizures did not have epilepsy or evidence of acute or remote brain injury, although all had clinical seizures prior to EEG. Only having epilepsy (odds ratio [OR] 5.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-21) or seizure(s) prior to EEG (OR 4.8, 95% CI 1.7-13) was independently associated with epileptiform EEG findings. Significance: Our study supports growing evidence that COVID-19 can affect the central nervous system, although seizures are unlikely a common cause of encephalopathy. Seizures and epileptiform activity on EEG occurred infrequently, and having 2098 |

Summary:Purpose: The goal of this study is to (1) provide clinically useful, previously unpublished comparative analyses of seizure-freedom rates for newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), and (2) recommend a standard for data presentation and analysis.Methods: Data were reviewed from placebo-controlled adjunctive trials in refractory patients of gabapentin (GPN), lamotrigine (LTG), topiramate (TOP), tiagabine (TGB), oxcarbazepine (OXC), levetiracetam (LEV), zonisamide (ZNS), and pregabalin (PGB). Seizure-freedom analyses in these publications, if included at all, consistently included both patients who completed the trial, and those who dropped out prior to completion (last observation carried forward, LOCF). This has the potential to increase reported seizure-free outcomes. Pharmaceutical companies were contacted for the provision of unpublished seizure-free data in the patients who completed the entire study.Results: In most cases, LOCF analysis produced a higher rate of seizure freedom compared to completer analysis. A total of 0%-1.1% of the LOCF population was seizure-free in the GPN trials (completer data not available). For the remaining AEDs, seizure-freedom results in the LOCF versus completer populations were: 0.7% versus 0.8% (LTG trial); 12% versus 2.6% (OXC trial); 3.6%-6.4% versus 3.9%-7.1% (LEV trial); 3.7%-7.9% versus 1.3%-1.4% (PGB trial); and 6.0% versus 3.0% (ZNS trial, minus titration period).Conclusions: By employing LOCF, a clinically unrealistic picture of seizure-free rates may be reported. Access to completer data is informative, as it includes only those patients who were able to tolerate the drug at doses that produced seizure freedom. Ideally, data from both ITT and completer analyses should be made available.

Over the last two decades a total of 11 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) have been introduced to the US market. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials have yielded information about each drug's efficacy, tolerability, and safety profile; however, few studies have compared the newer generation AEDs directly with the older generation. Comparative studies are not always straightforward in their interpretation, as many characteristics of drugs, both favorable and unfavorable, may not be highlighted by such studies. In general, findings from the literature suggest that the newer generation AEDs (including vigabatrin, felbamate, gabapentin, lamotrigine, tiagabine, topiramate, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, zonisamide, pregabalin, rufinamide, and lacosamide) enjoy both improved tolerability and safety compared with older agents such as phenobarbital, phenytoin, carbamazepine, and valproate. This is partially supported by some of the findings of the QSS and the TTA Committee of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), whose review of four AEDs (gabapentin, lamotrigine, topiramate, and tiagabine) is discussed. Briefly, when compared with carbamazepine, lamotrigine was better tolerated; topiramate adverse events (AEs) were fairly comparable to carbamazepine and valproate; and tiagabine compared with placebo was associated with a higher discontinuation rate due to AEs. The findings of the SANAD trial are also presented; when administered to patients with partial epilepsy, carbamazepine was most likely to fail due to AEs, and lamotrigine and gabapentin were least likely to fail due to AEs. When administered to patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy, topiramate was most frequently associated with AE-related discontinuation, followed by valproate; and while valproate was the most efficacious drug in this arm of the study, lamotrigine was more tolerable. What makes the SANAD study valuable and somewhat unique is its head-to-head comparison of one drug with another. Such comparative trials are overall lacking for new AEDs, although some conclusions can be drawn from the available data. In the end, however, AED selection must be based on individual patient and drug characteristics.

No abstract