-
Cells Aug 2022Neonatal seizures remain a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The past decade has resulted in substantial progress in seizure detection and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Neonatal seizures remain a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The past decade has resulted in substantial progress in seizure detection and understanding the impact seizures have on the developing brain. Optical monitoring such as cerebral near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) and broadband NIRS can provide non-invasive continuous real-time monitoring of the changes in brain metabolism and haemodynamics.
AIM
To perform a systematic review of optical biomarkers to identify changes in cerebral haemodynamics and metabolism during the pre-ictal, ictal, and post-ictal phases of neonatal seizures.
METHOD
A systematic search was performed in eight databases. The search combined the three broad categories: (neonates) AND (NIRS) AND (seizures) using the stepwise approach following PRISMA guidance.
RESULTS
Fifteen papers described the haemodynamic and/or metabolic changes observed with NIRS during neonatal seizures. No randomised controlled trials were identified during the search. Studies reported various changes occurring in the pre-ictal, ictal, and post-ictal phases of seizures.
CONCLUSION
Clear changes in cerebral haemodynamics and metabolism were noted during the pre-ictal, ictal, and post-ictal phases of seizures in neonates. Further studies are necessary to determine whether NIRS-based methods can be used at the cot-side to provide clear pathophysiological data in real-time during neonatal seizures.
Topics: Brain; Epilepsy; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Newborn, Diseases; Seizures; Spectroscopy, Near-Infrared
PubMed: 36010678
DOI: 10.3390/cells11162602 -
NeuroImage. Clinical 2023Current evidences show an increased risk of white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) in migraineurs compared to age-matched controls. However, WMHs prevalence and the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Current evidences show an increased risk of white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) in migraineurs compared to age-matched controls. However, WMHs prevalence and the associations between WMHs and clinical characteristics in migraineurs have not been systematically evaluated using a meta-analytical approach. This study explored the pooled prevalence of WMHs and the associations of WMHs with the clinical characteristics in patients with migraine.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies reporting the occurrence and clinical characteristics of patients with WMHs attributed to migraine was performed. We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases. Random-effects models were used to calculate the pooled prevalence rate, odds ratio (OR), or mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Thirty eligible studies were identified including 3,502 migraineurs aged 37.2 (mean) years. The pooled WMHs prevalence was 44 %, 45 %, and 38 % in migraine, migraine with aura, and migraine without aura groups, respectively. In migraineurs with WMHs, the frontal lobe and subcortical white matter were the most susceptible area. Compared with non-migraine controls, patients with migraine had increased odds for WMHs (OR 4.32, 95 % CI = 2.56-7.28, I = 67 %). According to reported univariable results from included studies, pooled analysis showed that clinical characteristics including age, presence of aura, disease duration, hypertension, diabetes mellitus and right-to-left shunt were associated with the presence of WMHs. Migraine pain and aura characteristics were not related to WMHs.
CONCLUSIONS
These data suggest that WMHs are common in migraine, especially in those who are older or have aura, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, or right-to-left shunt. A better understanding of the WMHs attributed to migraine is needed in future studies.
Topics: Humans; White Matter; Prevalence; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Migraine Disorders; Epilepsy; Hypertension; Leukoaraiosis
PubMed: 36610309
DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2023.103312 -
The International Journal of Risk &... 2023Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurological disorders, affecting more than 50 million people globally. In this review we summarised the evidence from... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurological disorders, affecting more than 50 million people globally. In this review we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials of gabapentin used as monotherapy for the treatment of focal epilepsy, both newly diagnosed and drug-resistant, with or without secondary generalisation.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effects of gabapentin monotherapy for people with epileptic focal seizures with and without secondary generalisation.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 24 February 2020) on 25 February 2020. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRA), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We also searched several Russian databases, reference lists of relevant studies, ongoing trials registers, conference proceedings, and we contacted trial authors.
RESULTS
We found five randomised controlled trials (3167 participants) comparing gabapentin to other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and differing doses of gabapentin as monotherapy for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy and drug- resistant focal epilepsy with or without secondary generalisation. Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality, risk of bias, and extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence and present seven patient-important outcomes in the "Summary of findings" tables. The quality of evidence was very low to moderate due to poor reporting quality, poor trial design, and other risks of bias, such as selective presentation of findings and potential heavy industry input. Better quality research may change our certainty in the effect estimates. None of the included trials reported on the number of people with 50% or greater reduction in seizures and time to withdrawal (retention time) in an extractable way. Gabapentin-treated participants were more likely to withdraw from treatment for any cause (285/539) than those treated with lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate pooled together (695/1317) (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.25; 3 studies, 1856 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but not carbamazepine. Fewer people treated with gabapentin withdrew from treatment owing to adverse events (190/525) than those treated with carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate (479/1238), (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.91; 1763 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), but not lamotrigine.
CONCLUSION
Gabapentin as monotherapy probably controlled seizures no better and no worse than comparator AEDs (lamotrigine, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and topiramate). Compared to carbamazepine, gabapentin was probably better in retaining people in studies and preventing withdrawals due to adverse events. The most common side effects associated with gabapentin were ataxia (poor co-ordination and unsteady gait), dizziness, fatigue, and drowsiness.
Topics: Humans; Gabapentin; Oxcarbazepine; Topiramate; Epilepsy; Anticonvulsants; Epilepsies, Partial; Seizures; Lamotrigine; Carbamazepine; Drug Resistant Epilepsy
PubMed: 37393439
DOI: 10.3233/JRS-235001 -
Journal of Neurology Sep 2023Epilepsy and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are common neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders, respectively, that can exist as comorbidities.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Epilepsy and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are common neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders, respectively, that can exist as comorbidities. However, the degree of comorbidity between both disorders has never been quantified based on a systematic review with meta-analysis. We performed a systematic search of the literature in Embase, PubMed, PsychINFO and the Cochrane Library on June 20, 2022. In a meta-analysis of 63 studies with a total sample size of 1,073,188 individuals (172,206 with epilepsy and 900,982 with ADHD) from 17 countries, the pooled prevalence of ADHD in epilepsy was 22.3% (95% CI 20.3-24.4%). The highest pooled prevalence was 12.7% (95% CI 9-17.1%) for ADHD-I subtype, whereas the pooled prevalence of epilepsy in ADHD was 3.4% (95% CI 2.53-4.21%). However, substantial heterogeneity in comorbidity rates was observed and partially attributed to the following factors: sample size, sample specification, geographical variations and diagnostic methods. Our study highlights the need for increased awareness of this diagnostic co-occurrence, and research is warranted to elucidate the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms.
Topics: Humans; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Comorbidity; Epilepsy; Prevalence
PubMed: 37326829
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-023-11794-z -
Epilepsy & Behavior : E&B Aug 2023Epileptic syndromes affecting children can sometimes be refractory to pharmacological treatments. Cannabinoids, especially cannabidiol, began to be studied to contribute... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Epileptic syndromes affecting children can sometimes be refractory to pharmacological treatments. Cannabinoids, especially cannabidiol, began to be studied to contribute to the treatment of these syndromes, configuring an expanding research area. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the scientific evidence available in the literature regarding the use of cannabinoids in the therapy of children with epilepsy.
METHOD
This is a systematic literature review, carried out according to the structure of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA), in the SCIELO, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE databases. Observational studies or clinical trials were included, conducted in humans, addressing the use of cannabinoids in pediatric patients with epilepsy, published in the last 10 years.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In all, 626 studies were found and analyzed, of which 29 were considered eligible for the research; studies indicated good efficacy, safety, and tolerability of cannabidiol in several syndromes, with emphasis on Lennox-Gastaut and Dravet syndromes, in addition to practical issues were perceived regarding the applicability and expectations of patients and physicians.
CONCLUSION
The use of cannabidiol was considered effective and safe, yet the studies were mostly carried out in the same countries.
Topics: Humans; Child; Cannabinoids; Cannabidiol; Anticonvulsants; Epilepsy; Epilepsies, Myoclonic
PubMed: 37390729
DOI: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2023.109330 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2023This is an updated version of an original Cochrane Review published in 2013 (Walker 2013). Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder affecting 0.5% to 1% of the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of an original Cochrane Review published in 2013 (Walker 2013). Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder affecting 0.5% to 1% of the population. Pharmacological treatment remains the first choice to control epilepsy. However, up to 30% of people do not respond to drug treatment, and therefore do not achieve seizure remission. Experimental and clinical evidence supports a role for inflammatory pathway activation in the pathogenesis of epilepsy which, if effectively targeted by immunomodulatory interventions, highlights a potentially novel therapeutic strategy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and tolerability of immunomodulatory interventions on seizures, adverse effect profile, cognition, and quality of life, compared to placebo controls, when used as additional therapy for focal epilepsy in children and adults.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 11 November 2021: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and Medline (Ovid) 1946 to 10 November 2021. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. We placed no language restrictions. We reviewed the bibliographies of retrieved studies to search for additional reports of relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised placebo-controlled trials of add-on immunomodulatory drug interventions, in which an adequate method of concealment of randomisation was used. The studies were double-, single- or unblinded. Eligible participants were children (aged over 2 years) and adults with focal epilepsy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We assessed the following outcomes. 1. 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. 2. Seizure freedom. 3. Treatment withdrawal for any reason. 4. Quality of life. 5.
ADVERSE EFFECTS
We used an intention-to-treat (ITT) population for all primary analyses, and we presented results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% Cl).
MAIN RESULTS
We included three randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials on a total of 172 participants. All trials included children and adults over two years of age with focal epilepsy. Treatment phases lasted six weeks and follow-up from six weeks to six months. One of the three included trials described an adequate method of concealment of randomisation, whilst the other two trials were rated as having an unclear risk of bias due to lack of reported information around study design. Effective blinding of studies was reported in all three trials. All analyses were by ITT. One trial was sponsored by the manufacturer of an immunomodulatory agent and therefore was at high risk of funding bias. Immunomodulatory interventions were significantly more effective than placebo in reducing seizure frequency (risk ratio (RR) 2.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 4.60; 3 studies, 172 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For treatment withdrawal, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that people were more likely to discontinue immunomodulatory intervention than placebo (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.80; 3 studies, 172 participants; low-certainty evidence). The RR for adverse effects was 1.16 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.59; 1 study, 66 participants; low-certainty evidence). Certain adverse effects such as dizziness, headache, fatigue, and gastrointestinal disorders were more often associated with immunomodulatory interventions. There were little to no data on cognitive effects and quality of life. No important heterogeneity between studies was found for any of the outcomes. We judged the overall certainty of evidence (using the GRADE approach) as low to moderate due to potential attrition bias resulting from missing outcome data and imprecise results with wide confidence intervals.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Immunomodulatory interventions as add-on treatment for children and adults with focal epilepsy appear to be effective in reducing seizure frequency. It is not possible to draw any conclusions about the tolerability of these agents in children and adults with epilepsy. Further randomised controlled trials are needed.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Aged; Anticonvulsants; Quality of Life; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Epilepsies, Partial; Seizures; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37842826
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009945.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2023Newborn infants are more prone to seizures than older children and adults. The neuronal injury caused by seizures in neonates often results in long-term... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Newborn infants are more prone to seizures than older children and adults. The neuronal injury caused by seizures in neonates often results in long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae. There are several options for anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in neonates. However, the ideal choice of first-, second- and third-line ASM is still unclear. Further, many other aspects of seizure management such as whether ASMs should be initiated for only-electrographic seizures and how long to continue the ASM once seizure control is achieved are elusive.
OBJECTIVES
1. To assess whether any ASM is more or less effective than an alternative ASM (both ASMs used as first-, second- or third-line treatment) in achieving seizure control and improving neurodevelopmental outcomes in neonates with seizures. We analysed EEG-confirmed seizures and clinically-diagnosed seizures separately. 2. To assess maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy after achieving seizure control. We analysed EEG-confirmed seizures and clinically-diagnosed seizures separately. 3. To assess treatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures versus treatment of clinical seizures alone in neonates.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Epistemonikos and three databases in May 2022 and June 2023. These searches were not limited other than by study design to trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included neonates with EEG-confirmed or clinically diagnosed seizures and compared (1) any ASM versus an alternative ASM, (2) maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy, and (3) treatment of clinical or EEG seizures versus treatment of clinical seizures alone.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed trial eligibility, risk of bias and independently extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence interval (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 trials (1342 infants) in this review. Phenobarbital versus levetiracetam as first-line ASM in EEG-confirmed neonatal seizures (one trial) Phenobarbital is probably more effective than levetiracetam in achieving seizure control after first loading dose (RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.63 to 3.30; 106 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and after maximal loading dose (RR 2.83, 95% CI 1.78 to 4.50; 106 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, we are uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital when compared to levetiracetam on mortality before discharge (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.52; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence), requirement of mechanical ventilation (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.91; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence), sedation/drowsiness (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.68 to 4.44; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and epilepsy post-discharge (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.76; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report on mortality or neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months. Phenobarbital versus phenytoin as first-line ASM in EEG-confirmed neonatal seizures (one trial) We are uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital versus phenytoin on achieving seizure control after maximal loading dose of ASM (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.72; 59 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report on mortality or neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months. Maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy in clinically diagnosed neonatal seizures (two trials) We are uncertain about the effect of short-term maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy during the hospital stay (but discontinued before discharge) on the risk of repeat seizures before hospital discharge (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.01; 373 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Maintenance therapy with ASM compared to no maintenance therapy may have little or no effect on mortality before discharge (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.22; 373 participants; low-certainty evidence), mortality at 18 to 24 months (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.61; 111 participants; low-certainty evidence), neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.12; 108 participants; low-certainty evidence) and epilepsy post-discharge (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 14.72; 126 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures versus treatment of clinical seizures alone in neonates (two trials) Treatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures when compared to treating clinical seizures alone may have little or no effect on seizure burden during hospitalisation (MD -1871.16, 95% CI -4525.05 to 782.73; 68 participants; low-certainty evidence), mortality before discharge (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.27; 68 participants; low-certainty evidence) and epilepsy post-discharge (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.73; 35 participants; low-certainty evidence). The trials did not report on mortality or neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months. We report data from the most important comparisons here; readers are directed to Results and Summary of Findings tables for all comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Phenobarbital as a first-line ASM is probably more effective than levetiracetam in achieving seizure control after the first loading dose and after the maximal loading dose of ASM (moderate-certainty evidence). Phenobarbital + bumetanide may have little or no difference in achieving seizure control when compared to phenobarbital alone (low-certainty evidence). Limited data and very low-certainty evidence preclude us from drawing any reasonable conclusion on the effect of using one ASM versus another on other short- and long-term outcomes. In neonates who achieve seizure control after the first loading dose of phenobarbital, maintenance therapy compared to no maintenance ASM may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality before discharge, mortality by 18 to 24 months, neurodevelopmental disability by 18 to 24 months and epilepsy post-discharge (low-certainty evidence). In neonates with hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy, treatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures when compared to treating clinical seizures alone may have little or no effect on seizure burden during hospitalisation, all-cause mortality before discharge and epilepsy post-discharge (low-certainty evidence). All findings of this review apply only to term and late preterm neonates. We need well-designed RCTs for each of the three objectives of this review to improve the precision of the results. These RCTs should use EEG to diagnose seizures and should be adequately powered to assess long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. We need separate RCTs evaluating the choice of ASM in preterm infants.
Topics: Infant; Child; Infant, Newborn; Adult; Humans; Adolescent; Phenytoin; Levetiracetam; Epilepsy; Phenobarbital; Seizures
PubMed: 37873971
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014967.pub2 -
European Review For Medical and... Jul 2023The aim of the study was to summarize the findings of the studies documenting the efficacy and safety of perampanel when used in children/adolescents or adults, either... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the study was to summarize the findings of the studies documenting the efficacy and safety of perampanel when used in children/adolescents or adults, either as add-on therapy or as monotherapy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus. Only studies with a cohort-based approach (either prospective or retrospective) were included. We were interested in real-world studies and therefore, studies with a highly regulated environment, such as randomized controlled trials, were excluded. The primary outcomes of interest were retention rates, response rates and seizure-free rates. Random effects model was used for the analysis. Effect sizes were reported as pooled prevalence along with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
A total of 34 studies were included. The retention rates, within 24 months from initiation of treatment as an add-on therapy, ranged between 65% to 77% among children and adolescents. For adults, the retention rate varied between 56 to 77% within 24 months from initiation of treatment. The response rate was around 70% in children/adolescents and 52% in adults at 24 months of follow-up. Around 25% of children and adolescents and 37% of adults were seizure-free at 24 months follow-up period. The proportion of children/adolescents and adults reporting any treatment-related adverse effects was 29% and 41%, respectively. The commonly reported adverse effects were dizziness/drowsiness, somnolence, behavioral problems (irritability, aggression, anxiety, mood changes), postural instability/gait problems, fatigue and weight gain.
CONCLUSIONS
Perampanel might be an effective anti-epileptic drug in both children/adolescents and adults when used as an adjunct therapy. More data is required to comment on its use as monotherapy. Careful monitoring for psychiatric problems and behavioral disturbances is required, both prior to initiating treatment as well as during the course of management. Studies with long-term follow-up may are needed to confirm the findings of this meta-analysis.
Topics: Adult; Child; Adolescent; Humans; Anticonvulsants; Epilepsies, Partial; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Epilepsy; Nitriles; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37458642
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202307_32957 -
Neurology India 2021There are wide variations reported in the prevalence rates of common neurological disorders in India leading to huge treatment gap. There is no comprehensive systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There are wide variations reported in the prevalence rates of common neurological disorders in India leading to huge treatment gap. There is no comprehensive systematic review reporting prevalence of common neurological conditions affecting Indians which is essential for developing and aligning health services to meet patient care.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence of epilepsy, dementia, headache, and Parkinson's disease (PD) in India from 1980 to 2019.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
We performed a bibliographic systematic search in PubMed and Google Scholar along with manual search for peer-reviewed cross-sectional studies and community-based surveys reporting prevalence of epilepsy, dementia, headache, and PD in India from January 1980 to July 2019. Meta-analysis was performed adopting a random-effects model using "Metafor" package in R.
RESULTS
The systematic review and meta-analysis included 50 studies [epilepsy (n = 22), dementia (n = 19), headache (n = 6), and PD (n = 3)] including a total of 179,1541 participants of which 5,890 were diagnosed with epilepsy, 1,843 with dementia, 914 with headache, and 121 were diagnosed with PD. The pooled prevalence of epilepsy was 4.7 per 1,000 population (95% CI: 3.8-5.6) with high heterogeneity (P < 0.01, I = 98%). The prevalence of dementia was found to be 33.7 per 1,000 population (95% CI: 19.4-49.8) (P = 0, I = 100%). The pooled prevalence of headache and PD were found to be 438.8 per 1,000 population (95% CI: 287.6-602.3) (P < 0.0001, I = 97.99%), and 0.8 per 1,000 population (95%CI: 0.4-1.3) (P < 0.01, I = 95%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings could be used for appropriate policy measures and targeted treatments for addressing these conditions.
Topics: Cross-Sectional Studies; Dementia; Epilepsy; Headache; Humans; India; Parkinson Disease; Prevalence
PubMed: 33904437
DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.314588 -
European Journal of Paediatric... Jan 2022The evidence relating vaccination to febrile seizures and epilepsy is evaluated with an emphasis on febrile seizures (FS), Dravet syndrome (DS), West syndrome, and other...
INTRODUCTION
The evidence relating vaccination to febrile seizures and epilepsy is evaluated with an emphasis on febrile seizures (FS), Dravet syndrome (DS), West syndrome, and other developmental and epileptic encephalopathies.
METHODS
A systematic literature review using search words vaccination/immunization AND febrile seizures/epilepsy/Dravet/epileptic encephalopathy/developmental encephalopathy was performed. The role of vaccination as the cause/trigger/aggravation factor for FS or epilepsies and preventive measures were analyzed.
RESULTS
From 1428 results, 846 duplicates and 447 irrelevant articles were eliminated; 120 were analyzed.
CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence that vaccinations cause epilepsy in healthy populations. Vaccinations do not cause epileptic encephalopathies but may be non-specific triggers to seizures in underlying structural or genetic etiologies. The first seizure in DS may be earlier in vaccinated versus non-vaccinated patients, but developmental outcome is similar in both groups. Children with a personal or family history of FS or epilepsy should receive all routine vaccinations. This recommendation includes DS. The known risks of the infectious diseases prevented by immunization are well established. Vaccination should be deferred in case of acute illness. Acellular pertussis DTaP (diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis) is recommended. The combination of certain vaccine types may increase the risk of febrile seizures however the public health benefit of separating immunizations has not been proven. Measles-containing vaccine should be administered at age 12-15 months. Routine prophylactic antipyretics are not indicated, as there is no evidence of decreased FS risk and they can attenuate the antibody response following vaccination. Prophylactic measures (preventive antipyretic medication) are recommended in DS due to the increased risk of prolonged seizures with fever.
Topics: Child; Epilepsies, Myoclonic; Epilepsy; Humans; Infant; Seizures, Febrile; Spasms, Infantile; Vaccination
PubMed: 34922162
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpn.2021.11.014