It has been previously reported that a substantial proportion of newly referred neurology out-patients have symptoms that are considered by the assessing neurologist as unexplained by 'organic disease'. There has however been much controversy about how often such patients subsequently develop a disease diagnosis that, with hindsight, would have explained the symptoms. We aimed to determine in a large sample of new neurology out-patients: (i) what proportion are assessed as having symptoms unexplained by disease and the diagnoses given to them; and (ii) how often a neurological disorder emerged which, with hindsight, explained the original symptoms. We carried out a prospective cohort study of patients referred from primary care to National Health Service neurology clinics in Scotland, UK. Measures were: (i) the proportion of patients with symptoms rated by the assessing neurologist as 'not at all' or only 'somewhat explained' by 'organic disease' and the neurological diagnoses recorded at initial assessment; and (ii) the frequency of unexpected new diagnoses made over the following 18 months (according to the primary-care physician). One thousand four hundred and forty-four patients (30% of all new patients) were rated as having symptoms 'not at all' or only 'somewhat explained' by 'organic disease'. The most common categories of diagnosis were: (i) organic neurological disease but with symptoms unexplained by it (26%); (ii) headache disorders (26%); and (iii) conversion symptoms (motor, sensory or non-epileptic attacks) (18%). At follow-up only 4 out of 1030 patients (0.4%) had acquired an organic disease diagnosis that was unexpected at initial assessment and plausibly the cause of the patients' original symptoms. Eight patients had died at follow-up; five of whom had initial diagnoses of non-epileptic attacks. Seven other types of diagnostic change with very different implications to a 'missed diagnosis' were found and a new classification of diagnostic revision is presented. One-third of new neurology out-patients are assessed as having symptoms 'unexplained by organic disease'. A new diagnosis, which with hindsight explained the original symptoms, rarely became apparent to the patient's primary care doctor in the 18 months following the initial hospital consultation.
A substantial minority of our patients became spell-free with communication of the diagnosis the only intervention. Previous psychiatric diagnoses, social security payments, and gender were important predictors of outcome. Most patients stopped using emergency services, irrespective of whether or not spells continued. Outcomes other than spell frequency may be important in patients with psychogenic nonepileptic attacks.
Objectives To determine the disability, distress and employment status of new neurology outpatients with physical symptoms unexplained by organic disease and to compare them with patients with symptoms explained by organic disease. Methods As part of a cohort study (the Scottish Neurological Symptoms Study) neurologists rated the extent to which each new patient's symptoms were explained by organic disease. Patients whose symptoms were rated as 'not at all' or only 'somewhat' explained by disease were considered cases, and those whose symptoms were 'largely' or 'completely' explained by disease were considered controls. All patients completed self-ratings of disability, health status (Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 12-Item Scale (SF-12)) and emotional distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and also reported their employment and state financial benefit status. Results 3781 patients were recruited: 1144 (30%) cases and 2637 (70%) controls. Cases had worse physical health status (SF-12 score 42 vs 44; difference in means 1.7 (95% CI e2.5 to 0.9)) and worse mental health status (SF-12 score 43 vs 47; difference in means e3.5 (95% CI e4.3 to to 2.7)). Unemployment was similar in cases and controls (50% vs 50%) but cases were more likely not to be working for health reasons (54% vs 37% of the 50% not working; OR 2.0 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.4)) and also more likely to be receiving disabilityrelated state financial benefits (27% vs 22%; (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.6)). Conclusions New neurology patients with symptoms unexplained by organic disease have more disability-, distress-and disability-related state financial benefits than patients with symptoms explained by disease.
Summary: Purpose: This study compares the cognitive effects of topiramate (TPM) with those of valproate (VPA) using efficacious doses of each drug when used as adjunctive therapy to carbamazepine (CBZ). A key question of the study is to what extent a more gradual introduction of TPM improves tolerabil‐ity and prevents cognitive impairment. Methods: The study is a multicenter, randomized, observer‐blinded, parallel‐group clinical trial with VPA or TPM given as first‐line add‐on therapy to steady‐state treatment with CBZ. TPM is introduced at 25 mg and increased with weekly 25‐mg/d increments to a minimum dosage of 200 mg/d. The target dosage ranges from 200 to 400 mg/d for TPM and is 1800 mg/d for VPA. The study evaluates cognitive function changes from baseline to end point (after 20 weeks of treatment) and during titration (after 8 weeks of treatment). The primary outcome measure is the difference between the treatments (TPM versus VPA) in change from baseline to end point and change from baseline to titration, using a 95% confidence interval approach. Results: For the 10 baseline‐to‐end point comparisons, one test measuring short‐term verbal memory (Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test) yields a statistically significant difference between the treatments (p = 0.02), showing worsening for TPM and improvement of scores for VPA. The 10 baseline‐to‐titration comparisons also show one statistically significant difference, again for a test measuring short‐term memory (Recognition of Words; p = 0.04), showing a larger change in the negative direction for TPM. None of the mood tests or the test for subjective complaints shows statistically significant differences between the treatments, although more scores are in the negative direction for TPM during titration. Conclusion: Although the pattern of changes in the negative direction seems consistent with clinical information, the differences found between the treatments are small. An important finding of our study is that, when the results are compared with those of other studies, it is clear that gradual introduction of TPM can reduce the extent of cognitive impairment (with a maximum of about 0.6 SD).
SummaryAn international consensus clinical practice statement issued in 2011 ranked psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) among the top three neuropsychiatric problems. An ILAE PNES Task Force was founded and initially charged with summarizing the current state of the art in terms of diagnosis and treatment, resulting in two publications. The first described different levels of diagnostic certainty. The second summarized current knowledge of management approaches. The present paper summarizes an international workshop of the ILAE PNES Task Force that focused on the current understanding and management of PNES around the world. We initially provide a knowledge update about the etiology, epidemiology, and prognosis of PNES—in adults and in special patient groups, such as children, older adults, and those with intellectual disability. We then explore clinical management pathways and obstacles to optimal care for this disorder around the world by focusing on a number of countries with different cultural backgrounds and at very different stages of social and economic development (United Kingdom, U.S.A., Zambia, Georgia, China, and Japan). Although evidence‐based methods for the diagnosis and treatment of PNES have now been described, and much is known about the biopsychosocial underpinnings of this disorder, this paper describes gaps in care (not only in less developed countries) that result in patients with PNES not having adequate access to healthcare provisions. A range of challenges requiring solutions tailored to different healthcare systems emerges. Continued attention to PNES by the ILAE and other national and international neurologic, psychiatric, and health organizations, along with ongoing international collaboration, should ensure that patients with PNES do not lose out as healthcare services evolve around the world.
Summary:Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of zonisamide (ZNS) as adjunctive treatment in patients with refractory localization-related epilepsy.Methods: This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of adjunctive ZNS in 351 patients with refractory partial seizures receiving a stable regimen of one to three antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Patients were randomized to placebo or ZNS, 100 mg, 300 mg, or 500 mg/day (2:1:1:2) after a 12-week baseline. Dose titration was undertaken over a 6-week titration phase, which was followed by an 18-week fixed-dose assessment phase. Primary efficacy parameters were the differences between ZNS, 500 mg/day, and placebo in the change from baseline in frequency of complex partial (CP) seizures during the fixed-dose assessment phase and in the proportion of CP responders (≥50% decrease from baseline in seizure frequency). Safety and tolerability also were assessed.Results: Compared with placebo, the highest dose of ZNS (500 mg/day) resulted in a significantly greater decrease in CP seizure frequency from baseline (51.2% vs. 16.3%; p < 0.0001) and a significantly higher proportion of CP responders (52.3% vs. 21.3%; p < 0.001). Both ZNS, 500 mg/day, and 300 mg/day were statistically superior to placebo in reducing the frequency of "all seizures" and simple partial (SP) + CP seizures. For all seizures, a significant dose-response relation was observed (p < 0.0001).The most common adverse events were somnolence, headache, dizziness, and nausea during the titration phase and headache and pharyngitis during the fixed-dose assessment phase.Conclusions: ZNS provides dose-dependent, effective, and generally well-tolerated adjunctive therapy in patients with partial seizures.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.