Epilepsy is a chronic brain disorder characterised by intermittent, often unpredictable seizures with associated significant psychological and social consequences for everyday living [1]. Epilepsy is the most common non-infectious neurological disease of childhood in low and low-middle-income countries, and its incidence is highest in the first decade of life, a period during which children begin and complete a critical period of social and educational development [2-4]. It is estimated that epilepsy affects approximately 50 million people worldwide, 40 million of which live in low-and middleincome countries [5]. Recent active epilepsy prevalences in Nigeria were estimated as 20.8/1000 in rural and 4.7/1000 in semi-rural areas [6]. Although little is known about the exact epilepsy prevalence in students in Nigeria, it is likely to be lower in comparison to high-income countries, because stigma arising from misconceptions about the condition keep students with epilepsy away from school [7]. Social discrimination, negative attitudes, and stigma against people with epilepsy are often more devastating and harmful than

No abstract

No abstract

The aim of this review was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of postictal creatine kinase (CK) levels in the differential diagnosis of epileptic seizures (ES) and psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES). A systematic search was conducted for studies that evaluated postictal CK levels in patients with ES (all types) and PNES. Sensitivity and specificity with 95 % confidence intervals were determined for each study, taking into account: (a) the upper limits adopted; and (b) the 95.7th percentile values, which are recently proposed practical upper reference limits for CK activity. Four studies, comprising a total of 343 events (248 ES and 95 PNES), were available for analysis. Most patients (47/78, 60 %) with ES considered had primarily or secondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures. The sensitivity of increased postictal CK levels for ES ranged from 14.6 to 87.5, whereas specificity ranged from 85.0 to 100.0. At the 95.7th percentile threshold, sensitivity ranged from 14.6 to 62.5 and specificity was 100.0. The limited number of studies available, their small sample size, and lack of individual event data prevented further stratification analysis by seizure type. Despite the clinical heterogeneity and the limitations of the included studies, increased postictal CK levels are highly specific for the diagnosis of ES, although no definite conclusion on its role in differentiating between convulsive and non-convulsive ES can be drawn. Postictal serum CK levels can provide valuable retrospective information at the later stages of the differential diagnosis of ES and PNES. Due to low sensitivity, normal postictal CK levels do not exclude ES.

SUMMARYSeveral different terms have been used to describe "psychogenic nonepileptic seizures" (PNES) in the literature. In this study, we evaluated the most common English terms used to describe PNES on Google and in PubMed using multiple search terms (https://www.google.com and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed). The information prevalence of the five terms most frequently used to refer to PNES in PubMed were: psychogenic non(-)epileptic seizure(s), followed by pseudo(-)seizure(s), non(-)epileptic seizure(s), psychogenic seizure(s), and non(-)epileptic event(s). The five most frequently adopted terms to describe PNES in Google were: psychogenic non(-)epileptic seizure(s), followed by non(-)epileptic event(s), psychogenic attack(s), non(-)epileptic attack(s), and psychogenic non(-)epileptic attack(s). The broad spectrum of synonyms used to refer to PNES in the medical literature reflects a lack of internationally accepted, uniform terminology for PNES. In addition to "seizure(s)," lay people use the word "attack(s)" to describe PNES. Although considered obsolete, some terms, e.g., pseudoseizure(s), are still used in the recent medical literature. Adopting a uniform terminology to describe PNES could facilitate communication between epileptologists, physicians without specific expertise in epilepsy, and patients.

BackgroundGeneralized convulsive status epilepticus (GCSE) is a medical emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality that requires prompt medical intervention. Topiramate (TPM) is an antiepileptic drug effective against a broad spectrum of seizure types, and has been proposed as a possible therapeutic option for super-refractory status epilepticus (SRSE), the most severe form of GCSE.AimThis review aimed to evaluate the role of TPM in GCSE, including SRSE.MethodsMEDLINE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, LILACS, Google Scholar, and Opengrey.eu were systematically searched. We compared: (1) patients who did and who did not receive TPM as their last drug; (2) patients receiving TPM as the last drug and achieving SE control and patients receiving TPM as the last drug but without termination of SE.ResultsThe literature search yielded 1164 results, with individual data available for 35 patients (six with SRSE) from four studies. SE was controlled in 68.6% of patients receiving TPM either as the last drug (20) or not (15), and in 14 of the 20 patients receiving TPM as the last drug (70%). Only six patients received TPM for SRSE; in five of them, TPM was administered as the last drug with resolution of SE in four. When comparing patients who did and did not receive TPM as the last drug, no statistically significant difference was found for any of the variables considered; similarly, no difference was found comparing patients receiving TPM as the last drug and achieving SE control with those receiving TPM as the last drug but without termination of SE.ConclusionsThe lack of a statistically significant difference is likely to be due to the small sample size. In only a few patients was TPM used for SRSE. There is an unmet need for high-quality studies to evaluate the role of TPM in GCSE.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40265-016-0672-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

SUMMARYObjective: Epilepsy care in developing countries is challenged by the paucity of trained specialists, diagnostic tools, and antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). We retrospectively evaluated how epilepsy was managed in a Nigerian tertiary referral center, with the goals of determining diagnostic accuracy by comparing clinical and electroencephalography (EEG) diagnoses, the appropriateness of prescribed therapy by clinician specialization, and the association between therapy and patient outcomes. Methods: We examined the medical records of 372 patients diagnosed with epilepsy in the center over a 6-month period from 2011 to 2012. Data were obtained on methods of diagnosis, clinician specialization, therapeutic care, and patient self-or caregiverreported outcome on follow-up visits. Interrater agreement was assessed using Cohen's j coefficient, and the diagnoses made by nonspecialist and specialist clinicians compared using the chi-square test. Results: Of 372 patients diagnosed with epilepsy, only one had a brain computerized tomography (CT) scan. Seventy-six were differentially diagnosed for generalized or partial epilepsy by both clinical presentation and EEG. Low interrater agreement (j = 0.05) was found between these methods of diagnosis. Of the 76 patients, 53 (69.7%) received therapies judged as appropriate, with no significant difference in prescription rates for appropriate therapy between nonspecialists and specialists (p = 0.536). Specific syndromic diagnoses were made only in 4% of patients, and only in patients who underwent EEG. Only three first-generation AEDs were prescribed, with 97.6% of patients receiving carbamazepine. Significance: The discrepancy between diagnoses made on clinical features alone versus EEG diagnosis suggests that in many patients without concomitant EEG, the epileptic syndrome might have been erroneously classified, with increased risk of inappropriate treatment. Resources should be more properly directed toward increasing access to diagnostic facilities and newer generation AEDs.

No abstract