SummaryBackground18% of the world's population lives in India, and many states of India have populations similar to those of large countries. Action to effectively improve population health in India requires availability of reliable and comprehensive state-level estimates of disease burden and risk factors over time. Such comprehensive estimates have not been available so far for all major diseases and risk factors. Thus, we aimed to estimate the disease burden and risk factors in every state of India as part of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study 2016.MethodsUsing all available data sources, the India State-level Disease Burden Initiative estimated burden (metrics were deaths, disability-adjusted life-years [DALYs], prevalence, incidence, and life expectancy) from 333 disease conditions and injuries and 84 risk factors for each state of India from 1990 to 2016 as part of GBD 2016. We divided the states of India into four epidemiological transition level (ETL) groups on the basis of the ratio of DALYs from communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional diseases (CMNNDs) to those from non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and injuries combined in 2016. We assessed variations in the burden of diseases and risk factors between ETL state groups and between states to inform a more specific health-system response in the states and for India as a whole.FindingsDALYs due to NCDs and injuries exceeded those due to CMNNDs in 2003 for India, but this transition had a range of 24 years for the four ETL state groups. The age-standardised DALY rate dropped by 36·2% in India from 1990 to 2016. The numbers of DALYs and DALY rates dropped substantially for most CMNNDs between 1990 and 2016 across all ETL groups, but rates of reduction for CMNNDs were slowest in the low ETL state group. By contrast, numbers of DALYs increased substantially for NCDs in all ETL state groups, and increased significantly for injuries in all ETL state groups except the highest. The all-age prevalence of most leading NCDs increased substantially in India from 1990 to 2016, and a modest decrease was recorded in the age-standardised NCD DALY rates. The major risk factors for NCDs, including high systolic blood pressure, high fasting plasma glucose, high total cholesterol, and high body-mass index, increased from 1990 to 2016, with generally higher levels in higher ETL states; ambient air pollution also increased and was highest in the low ETL group. The incidence rate of the leading causes of injuries also increased from 1990 to 2016. The five leading individual causes of DALYs in India in 2016 were ischaemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diarrhoeal diseases, lower respiratory infections, and cerebrovascular disease; and the five leading risk factors for DALYs in 2016 were child and maternal malnutrition, air pollution, dietary risks, high systolic blood pressure, and high fasting plasma glucose. Behind these broad trends many variations existed between the ETL state groups and between states within the ETL groups. Of the ten le...

SummaryBackgroundSeizures and their consequences contribute to the burden of epilepsy because they can cause health loss (premature mortality and residual disability). Data on the burden of epilepsy are needed for health-care planning and resource allocation. The aim of this study was to quantify health loss due to epilepsy by age, sex, year, and location using data from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study.MethodsWe assessed the burden of epilepsy in 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2016. Burden was measured as deaths, prevalence, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs; a summary measure of health loss defined by the sum of years of life lost [YLLs] for premature mortality and years lived with disability), by age, sex, year, location, and Socio-demographic Index (SDI; a compound measure of income per capita, education, and fertility). Vital registrations and verbal autopsies provided information about deaths, and data on the prevalence and severity of epilepsy largely came from population representative surveys. All estimates were calculated with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs).FindingsIn 2016, there were 45·9 million (95% UI 39·9–54·6) patients with all-active epilepsy (both idiopathic and secondary epilepsy globally; age-standardised prevalence 621·5 per 100 000 population; 540·1–737·0). Of these patients, 24·0 million (20·4–27·7) had active idiopathic epilepsy (prevalence 326·7 per 100 000 population; 278·4–378·1). Prevalence of active epilepsy increased with age, with peaks at 5–9 years (374·8 [280·1–490·0]) and at older than 80 years of age (545·1 [444·2–652·0]). Age-standardised prevalence of active idiopathic epilepsy was 329·3 per 100 000 population (280·3–381·2) in men and 318·9 per 100 000 population (271·1–369·4) in women, and was similar among SDI quintiles. Global age-standardised mortality rates of idiopathic epilepsy were 1·74 per 100 000 population (1·64–1·87; 1·40 per 100 000 population [1·23–1·54] for women and 2·09 per 100 000 population [1·96–2·25] for men). Age-standardised DALYs were 182·6 per 100 000 population (149·0–223·5; 163·6 per 100 000 population [130·6–204·3] for women and 201·2 per 100 000 population [166·9–241·4] for men). The higher DALY rates in men were due to higher YLL rates compared with women. Between 1990 and 2016, there was a non-significant 6·0% (−4·0 to 16·7) change in the age-standardised prevalence of idiopathic epilepsy, but a significant decrease in age-standardised mortality rates (24·5% [10·8 to 31·8]) and age-standardised DALY rates (19·4% [9·0 to 27·6]). A third of the difference in age-standardised DALY rates between low and high SDI quintile countries was due to the greater severity of epilepsy in low-income settings, and two-thirds were due to a higher YLL rate in low SDI countries.InterpretationDespite the decrease in the disease burden from 1990 to 2016, epilepsy is still an important cause of disability and mortality. Standardised collection of data on epilepsy in population representative surveys will strengthen the...

This revised set of diagnostic criteria provides simpler definitions and may facilitate its more uniform and widespread applicability in different scenarios.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo provide information on the effect of the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on people with epilepsy and provide consensus recommendations on how to provide the best possible care for people with epilepsy while avoiding visits to urgent care facilities and hospitalizations during the novel coronavirus pandemic. MethodsThe authors developed consensus statements in 2 sections. The first was "How should we/ clinicians modify our clinical care pathway for people with epilepsy during the COVID-19 pandemic?" The second was "What general advice should we give to people with epilepsy during this crisis? The authors individually scored statements on a scale of −10 (strongly disagree) to +10 (strongly agree). Five of 11 recommendations for physicians and 3/5 recommendations for individuals/families were rated by all the authors as 7 or above (strongly agree) on the first round of rating. Subsequently, a teleconference was held where statements for which there was a lack of strong consensus were revised. ResultsAfter revision, all consensus recommendations received a score of 7 or above. The recommendations focus on administration of as much care as possible at home to keep people with epilepsy out of health care facilities, where they are likely to encounter COVID-19 (including strategies for rescue therapy), as well as minimization of risk of seizure exacerbation through adherence, and through ensuring a regular supply of medication. We also provide helpful links to additional helpful information for people with epilepsy and health providers. ConclusionThese recommendations may help health care professionals provide optimal care to people with epilepsy during the coronavirus pandemic.

Here we put forward a roadmap that summarizes important questions that need to be answered to determine more effective and safer treatments. A key concept in management of neurocysticercosis is the understanding that infection and disease due to neurocysticercosis are variable and thus different clinical approaches and treatments are required. Despite recent advances, treatments remain either suboptimal or based on poorly controlled or anecdotal experience. A better understanding of basic pathophysiologic mechanisms including parasite survival and evolution, nature of the inflammatory response, and the genesis of seizures, epilepsy, and mechanisms of anthelmintic action should lead to improved therapies.

No abstract

Acute organophosphate (OP) poisoning is one of the most common poisonings in emergency medicine and toxicological practice in some of the less-developed nations in South Asia. Traditionally, OP poisoning comes under the domain of emergency physicians, internists, intensivists, and toxicologists. However, some of the complications following OP poisoning are neurological and involve neurologists. The pathophysiological basis for the clinical manifestations of OP poisoning is inactivation of the enzyme, acetylcholinesterase at the peripheral nicotinic and muscarinic and central nervous system (CNS) nerve terminals and junctions. Nicotinic manifestations occur in severe cases and late in the course; these comprise of fasciculations and neuromuscular paralysis. There is a good correlation between the electrophysiological abnormalities and the severity of the clinical manifestations. Neurophysiological abnormalities characteristic of nicotinic junctions (mainly neuromuscular junction) dysfunction include: (1) single, supramaximal electrical-stimulus-induced repetitive response/s, (2) decrement-increment response to high frequency (30 Hz) repetitive nerve stimulation (RNS), and (3) decremental response to high frequency (30 Hz) RNS. Atropine ameliorates muscarinic manifestations. Therapeutic agents that can ameliorate nicotinic manifestations, mainly neuromuscular, are oximes. However, the evidence for this effect is inconclusive. This may be due to the fact that there are several factors that determine the therapeutic effect of oximes. These factors include: The OP compound responsible for poisoning, duration of poisoning, severity of poisoning, and route of exposure. There is also a need to study the effect of oximes on the neurophysiological abnormalities.