View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Consensus Guidelines into the Management of Epilepsy in Adults with an Intellectual Disability

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Consensus Guidelines into the Management of Epilepsy in Adults with an Intellectual Disability
Language: English
Authors: Kerr, M., Scheepers, M., Arvio, M.
Source: Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. Aug 2009 53(8):687-694.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Physical Description: PDF
Page Count: 8
Publication Date: 2009
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Descriptors: Delphi Technique, Epilepsy, Mental Retardation, Guidelines, Adults, Health Services, Health Needs, Research Needs
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2009.01182.x
ISSN: 0964-2633
Abstract: Background: Epilepsy has a pervasive impact on the lives of people with intellectual disability and their carers. The delivery of high-quality care is impacted on by the complexity and diversity of epilepsy in this population. This article presents the results of a consensus clinical guideline process. Results: A Delphi process identified a list of priority areas for the development of evidence-based guidelines. All guidelines were graded and consensus on scoring was achieved across the guideline group. Conclusion: There is a dearth of high-quality evidence from well-constructed studies on which to base guidance. However, the development of internationally derived consensus guidelines may further support the management of epilepsy in adults with an intellectual disability.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 24
Entry Date: 2009
Accession Number: EJ848018
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGpW6GoNO8wRM3tMs52RHfLAAAA4TCB3gYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHQMIHNAgEAMIHHBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPE-ZSMvPWF1MdyrkgIBEICBmVFl0KTzRcMh79DS1T_QVM2WSCGwiAiK8993bQyP6QOexCs5ETS-QvZpqj3xFTSbA4W_AflqZT7VR9qMRHLmLXGDsOUDaFSbjlXK9AYMOtmKjONZGQJdYq3nBRyjYSm4aMPtTZwKZg8Z_VI7pCjc_aFVCAisUqyFkysACQl9GFtyTvcoXWX8piIw3Jje4GBhd4-RXn7D1YyDZQ==
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0043198319;eul01aug.09;2019Jun04.10:26;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0043198319-1">Consensus guidelines into the management of epilepsy in adults with an intellectual disability. </title> <p>Background  Epilepsy has a pervasive impact on the lives of people with intellectual disability and their carers. The delivery of high‐quality care is impacted on by the complexity and diversity of epilepsy in this population. This article presents the results of a consensus clinical guideline process. Results  A Delphi process identified a list of priority areas for the development of evidence‐based guidelines. All guidelines were graded and consensus on scoring was achieved across the guideline group. Conclusion  There is a dearth of high‐quality evidence from well‐constructed studies on which to base guidance. However, the development of internationally derived consensus guidelines may further support the management of epilepsy in adults with an intellectual disability.</p> <p>Keywords: intellectual disability guidelines consensus; epilepsy</p> <p>Adults with an intellectual disability (ID) comprise a significant proportion of the prevalent epilepsy population ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref1">13</reflink>]). Moreover, the association between ID and refractory epilepsy means that they compose a major portion of the 'hard to treat' epilepsy population.</p> <p>The population with ID offers certain unique challenges to the epilepsy specialist as a result of the complex aetiology and commonly associated behaviour and communication disorders ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref2">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>In recognition of these special clinical issues, guidelines were produced in 2001 highlighting key management issues ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref3">9</reflink>]). Since their publication there has been an increase in evidence‐based guidance for people with epilepsy. In the UK, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref4">20</reflink>]) and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref5">4</reflink>]) guidelines have produced detailed guidance, as have the American Neurology Association in North America and the ILAE ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref6">7</reflink>]). These have greatly clarified treatment approaches to people with epilepsy in general; however, there remains a dearth of guidance on the complex clinical areas particularly pertinent to adults with ID.</p> <p>In order to address this need, we set out to establish pragmatic evidence‐based guidance for key issues in the management of epilepsy in people with ID. This paper describes the process and the clinical practice points.</p> <hd id="AN0043198319-2">Method</hd> <p>The guidelines were established through evidence‐based modified Delphi process, a process successfully employed in the production of other epilepsy guidelines ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref7">14</reflink>]). Professionals with a special interest and experience in the management of epilepsy in people with ID were identified and invited to participate through the International Society for the Scientific Study of Intellectual Disability (IASSID). The group were individuals who had contributed to the previous guidelines and others who had shown an interest in contributing through the special interest health group of IASSID. Fifteen individuals from six countries participated throughout the Delphi Process. The individuals were comprised from adult neurology, nursing, paediatric neurology, psychiatry and physicians with an interest in the care of adults with an ID.</p> <p>All experts were sent a detailed evidence base derived from a Cochrane review of interventions for epilepsy in people with ID. The search method for this can be seen in the two Cochrane reviews ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref8">1</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref9">2</reflink>]). These reviews identified, with a full electronic and hand search methodology, evidence for interventions both pharmacological and nonpharmacological. The participating experts were sent a CD‐Rom and associated literature containing the abstracts from the review; including all interventional trials identified. Each expert was then invited to submit up to 10 areas where it was felt new clinical guidance statements were necessary. An initial sample of the 30 key clinical areas was identified through compilation of the submissions from the experts (Table 1). A further mailing of the group was undertaken on which the experts were asked to rate, ranking 1 to 10, the 10 areas of most importance from the 30. These priority data were analysed and a large separation in ranking score was seen after the 11th area, thus 11 priority areas were put forward for the development of guidelines (Table 2).</p> <p>1 Clinical areas of relevance</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Down's syndrome and epilepsy</td></tr><tr><td>Psychogenic non‐epileptic attack disorder</td></tr><tr><td>Patient and carer education & communication</td></tr><tr><td>Sleep disturbance and seizures</td></tr><tr><td>Access, referral requirement and preparation for EEG and MRI</td></tr><tr><td>Links and similarities with other published guidelines e.g. ILAE/NICE or other country guidelines</td></tr><tr><td>Differential diagnosis of epilepsy</td></tr><tr><td>Treatment approach to refractory seizures</td></tr><tr><td>Managing drug side effects and potential switch from 'sedating' AEDs</td></tr><tr><td>Drug interactions</td></tr><tr><td>Referral procedures for epilepsy surgery</td></tr><tr><td>Assessment of treatment emergent behavioural difficulties</td></tr><tr><td>Syndrome‐dependant treatment in adults e.g. Dravets</td></tr><tr><td>Bone health issues</td></tr><tr><td>Use of rescue medication</td></tr><tr><td>Impact of comorbidity</td></tr><tr><td>Impact of associated feeding difficulties</td></tr><tr><td>Autism and epilepsy</td></tr><tr><td>Assessing the impact of seizures</td></tr><tr><td>Impact of AED on behaviour/cognition</td></tr><tr><td>Risk assessment e.g. drowning/sudep?</td></tr><tr><td>Impact of psychotropic and other medication on seizure threshold</td></tr><tr><td>When to discontinue AEDs in seizure free patients</td></tr><tr><td>Monotherapy choice</td></tr><tr><td>Indication for genetic investigation</td></tr><tr><td>Which specialist should treat people with ID and epilepsy</td></tr><tr><td>Investigation of first seizure</td></tr><tr><td>Drug‐induced psychosis</td></tr><tr><td>Assessment of quality of life</td></tr><tr><td>Seizure disorder in the elderly</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 EEG, electroencephalogram; MRI, Magnetic Resonance Image; NICE, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; AED, anti‐epileptic drug.</p> <p>2 Prioritised guidelines areas</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td> 1. Treatment approach to refractory seizures</td></tr><tr><td> 2. Impact of AED on behaviour/cognition</td></tr><tr><td> 3. Managing drug side effects and potential switch from 'sedating' AEDs</td></tr><tr><td> 4. Assessment of treatment emergent behavioural difficulties</td></tr><tr><td> 5. Differential diagnosis of epilepsy</td></tr><tr><td> 6. Drug interactions</td></tr><tr><td> 7. Autism and epilepsy</td></tr><tr><td> 8. Impact of comorbidity</td></tr><tr><td> 9. Referral procedures for epilepsy surgery</td></tr><tr><td>10. Access, referral requirement and preparation for EEG and MRI</td></tr><tr><td>11. Down's syndrome and epilepsy</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 AED, anti‐epileptic; EEG, electroencephalogram; MRI, Magnetic Resonance Image.</p> <p>Individuals within the group were asked to champion the development of draft statements on the basis of their particular expertise. These were then sent to group members for comment and were scored and graded as per the evidence‐based tables (Tables 3,4). Grading was by mode score. The final statements were resent to the group to confirm agreement on the grading by evidence level before the process was closed.</p> <p>3 Grading of evidence</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th><bold>Level of evidence</bold></th><th><bold>Type of evidence</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Ia</td><td>Evidence from systematic reviews or meta‐analysis of RCTs</td></tr><tr><td>IIb</td><td>Evidence from at least one RCT</td></tr><tr><td>IIa</td><td>Evidence from at least one controlled study without randomisation</td></tr><tr><td>IIb</td><td>Evidence from at least one other type of quasi experimental study</td></tr><tr><td>III</td><td>Evidence from nonexperimental descriptive studies, such as comparative studies, correlation studies and case–control studies</td></tr><tr><td>IV</td><td>Evidence from expert committee reports or opinions and/or clinical experience of respected authorities</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 RCT, Randomised Controlled Trial.</item> <item>4 Grading of recommendations</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th><bold>Level of recommendation</bold></th><th><bold>Type of recommendation</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>A</td><td>Based on hierarchy I evidence</td></tr><tr><td>B</td><td>Based on hierarchy II evidence or extrapolated from hierarchy I evidence</td></tr><tr><td>C</td><td>Based on hierarchy III evidence or extrapolated from hierarchy I or II evidence</td></tr><tr><td>D</td><td>Directly based on hierarchy IV evidence or extrapolated from hierarchy I, II or III evidence</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0043198319-3">Key points</hd> <p>Key points from the guidelines include the following.</p> <hd id="AN0043198319-4">Differential diagnosis of epilepsy in people with intellectual disability</hd> <p>In the group of people who have epilepsy and ID inappropriate or misdiagnosis is prevented by following an appropriate diagnostic pathway. (Grade C)</p> <p>An eyewitness account of the seizure, with an accurate description of the suspected seizure, is needed in every case. This description should be recorded soon after the event; however, an exact description may often be too challenging for even an experienced observer when simultaneously having to care for the patient. A simple video recording of seizures (increasingly possible with modern mobile phones) can be a valuable tool and is particularly useful where frequent seizures occur. (Grade D)</p> <p>An assessment of the patient's capacity to participate in treatment decisions is always necessary. It is important to try to evaluate the patient's experience of the seizure and to ascertain whether there are warning signs and precipitating or perpetuating factors in the development of seizures. Where such a history is not available the clinician often has to depend on relatives, carers or other professionals involved in trying to infer this relevant information. It is recognised that proxy informants such as care providers can alter greatly from family in judging, for example, the severity of the epilepsy or the impact on an individual (Grade D)</p> <p>A careful assessment of potential seizure provoking factors should be made: fever, infection, stress, excessive waking, alcohol withdrawal, hyperventilation, some medications, sudden discontinuation of sedative drugs and specific activities (in the case of activity induced seizures) should be taken into account. (Grade C)</p> <p>Non‐convulsive epileptic phenomena and even partial seizures may be difficult to diagnose in people with ID. This may lead to an under‐diagnosis of these particular seizure types. (Grade C)</p> <p>Attributing a diagnosis of epilepsy to non‐epileptic events in people with ID is a significant problem. Sudden aggression, motor stereotypies and vacant staring are the most important reasons for the over‐diagnosis of epilepsy, and consequently also for inappropriate use of anti‐epileptic (AED) medication. (Grade C)</p> <p>Sleep disorders are often present in people with ID who have difficult‐to‐treat epilepsy and behavioural problems ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref10">5</reflink>]). It is important to understand the sleep disorder, categorise the problem, investigate appropriately and then come to a diagnosis. It is important that treatment of sleep disorder should be available for this group as it is a significant quality of life issue. (Grade C)</p> <p>Successful electroencephalogram (EEG) recording needs the patient to co‐operate and possibly sleep during the investigation. It is helpful, if possible, for prior acquaintance with the facilities to be made, in order for the patient to be less anxious and to maximise the opportunity of each appointment. Some patients may need melatonin or chloral hydrate (though National Licensing may restrict their use), and these do not affect the EEG findings. (Grade C)</p> <p>During the recording the clinician should be sensitive to the patient's reactions and proceed gently. Prolonged video‐EEG monitoring is of use in order to distinguish between epileptic and non‐epileptic seizures and in selecting candidates for epilepsy surgery. If this investigation is not available, portable cassette recording of the EEG may also be of considerable value. (Grade C)</p> <p>Magnetic Resonance Image (MRI) scanning of the brain is important in the diagnosis of conditions such as: malformations due to abnormal neuronal migration (lissencephaly, heterotopia), malformations due to abnormal cortical organisation (polymicrogyria, schizencephaly, cortical dysplasia), neoplastic lesions (e.g. ganglioglioma, dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumour, hamartoma of the hypothalamus), malformations of posterior fossa structures, ischaemic and haemorrhagic lesions (of the newborn), and neurometabolic disorders/leucoencephalopathies. If MRI is not available, Computed Tomography (CT) is recommended. Criteria for investigation should be agreed locally for people with epilepsy. Some people with ID may need anaesthesia for MRI scanning; this bears another set of risks that should be noted but should not mean exclusion from investigation. Brain CT, with contrast, is particularly useful in emergency situations. (Grade C)</p> <hd id="AN0043198319-5">Treatment</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0043198319-6">Refractory epilepsy</hd> <p>There is no unifying definition of refractory epilepsy. Often, seizures are referred to as being refractory or treatment resistant when three or more AEDs have failed ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref11">12</reflink>]). Selection of the appropriate drug for a given individual must be based on an understanding of the individual, each drug's pharmacology, side effect profile, interaction and risks. For the individual with ID, the impact of AEDs on their cognition, behaviour and mobility should be particularly considered. (Grade C)</p> <p>There is no Level I evidence comparing new AEDs with the old, or the new AEDs with each other in patients with refractory epilepsy. Studies of AEDs are often short‐term placebo controlled trials that are designed to meet the requirements of drug regulatory authorities rather than inform clinical decisions. (Grade C)</p> <p>On the basis of a recent Cochrane review ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref12">2</reflink>]), there is no evidence from randomised controlled trials that informs drug choices for refractory epilepsy in people with ID. Drugs should be chosen on the basis of the patients' seizure type, seizure syndrome, and aetiology and being cogniscent of the side effect profile of the drug. In general this evidence will come from trials in non‐ID populations. (Grade C)</p> <hd id="AN0043198319-7">Drug side effects</hd> <p>In the general population with epilepsy, individual AEDs show both positive and negative effects on cognition. There is insufficient evidence of these effects in people with ID. The evidence from the general population may not simply be extrapolated to people with ID because of the confounding impact of pre‐existing cognitive disability, the difficulty of recognising and identifying causes of drowsiness, and communication difficulties in assessing drug impact on their quality of life. It is therefore recommended that the impact of the drug in the general population be carefully considered and reflected in clinician choice (Grade C).</p> <p>New prescription of phenobarbitone (Phenobarbital) ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref13">21</reflink>]) is discouraged because of the high incidence of behavioural side effects in paediatric studies. However, it is recognised that the data are based on paediatric studies and that in some countries fiscal constraints mean it is a drug of choice. Any use should be closely monitored for behavioural effects. In individual cases, the drug may be used as a third‐line AED if other, more suitable options have been used without success. (Grade B)</p> <p>In a placebo‐controlled study of topiramate as add‐on therapy in patients with ID no significant behaviour changes between groups were noted using a validated measure of behaviour change. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref14">10</reflink>]) (Grade B)</p> <p>No recommendation can be given for a specific drug of choice in patients with epilepsy and ID. Similarly, there is no drug that would have to be avoided in those patients for its cognitive or behavioural side effects. (Grade B)</p> <p>Baseline cognitive and behavioural assessments should be made and then remeasured after drug changes, preferably by using validated measures ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref15">6</reflink>];[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref16">11</reflink>]), before introducing a new drug and on follow‐up. Such vigilance enables the identification of changes in cognition and/or behaviour. (Grade C)</p> <p>It is important to recognise that the majority of patients in this population are unable to self‐report side effects. So, subtle effects (e.g. double‐vision) may remain undetected and only overt ones (e.g. vomiting) may come to the attention of doctors, care‐givers and relatives. Non‐specific symptoms including unwillingness to take medication or behavioural disturbances may be due to – otherwise undetected – side effects such as nausea. (Grade D)</p> <p>It may be difficult to distinguish long‐term side effects from the consequences of underlying or accompanying diseases versus an AED influence. For example, the development of osteoporosis is not necessarily attributable solely or partially as a side effect of drug therapy but may be at least partly due to diet (low D‐vitamin serum levels) or impaired mobility as a consequence of physical disability. (Grade D)</p> <hd id="AN0043198319-8">Drug interactions</hd> <p>Because of the possibility of drug interactions, complicated by the patients' difficulties in communicating their symptoms, AED treatment should be re‐evaluated whenever individuals have a change in their non‐AED medication ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref17">18</reflink>]). (Grade C)</p> <p>Patients with the highest risk of drug interactions are patients with comorbid disorders such as psychiatric illness, HIV/AIDS, cardiovascular disease, or cancer, patients with difficult‐to‐control or refractory epilepsy and geriatric patients. (Grade C)</p> <p>Physicians should be aware of what drugs the patient is taking, including non‐AEDs, over‐the‐counter medications, and supplemental nutrients and understand the underlying metabolic pathways of these agents. Just because a medication is 'over‐the‐counter', does not mean that it is necessarily devoid of interactions. (Grade C)</p> <p>Consideration of the measurement of concentrations of an AED, if available, should be made at the time a patient presents with a clinically significant possible dose‐related adverse event. The clinical assessment of the patient is critical and often more important than measuring the drug level. Several individual clinical situations, such as pregnancy, may merit specific drug level monitoring ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref18">17</reflink>]). (Grade C)</p> <p>Patients on phenytoin are an exception and need regular, at least yearly, serum drug concentration measurement. Drug monitoring must, however, be combined with clinical examination for clinical signs of side effects (e.g. Nystagmus). (Grade B)</p> <p>Predicting AED drug interactions can assist in quickly and efficiently achieving and maintaining therapeutic target levels. The potential for drug interactions is not a contraindication. The key is recognising that an interaction is possible, then taking steps to prevent or minimise complications from occurring. (Grade C)</p> <p>When patients are on phenytoin or carbamazepine in combination with valproate an assay of free, unbound, phenytoin or carbamazepine may be a better reflection of potential toxicity as these AEDs have high protein binding. (Grade C)</p> <hd id="AN0043198319-9">Behaviour</hd> <p>An initial clear description of any behavioural presentation should be made. In particular, the type of behaviour, precipitants and past history of similar behaviour should be recorded. (Grade D)</p> <p>Intercurrent physical illness (including exclusion of a metabolic cause of ID) should be excluded as a cause of behavioural disturbance irrespective of the apparent association with the timing of drug change. In particular, direct questioning as to whether the symptoms could be explained by gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease which can cause sleep disturbance and appetite change, should be made. (Grade D)</p> <p>The majority of problem behaviours seen in people with ID represent longstanding disability‐related factors such as level of ability, communication difficulties, environmental issues or the presence of autistic traits. Clinicians should clearly communicate this to carers and ensure that the patient is receiving the maximum social support. (Grade C)</p> <p>Where the behaviour has occurred in association with significant seizure reduction a consideration that the patient is experiencing so‐called 'forced normalisation' ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref19">16</reflink>]) should be made. 'Forced normalisation' is the concept that behaviour deterioration occurs as the EEG normalises but in clinical practice often refers to seizures stopping, or significantly reducing, without corroborative EEG evidence. There is no trial data to guide response to this situation when it occurs. Identification of the phenomenon, behavioural support to the patient and family, treatment of the emergent psychiatric condition and a risk assessment of a return of seizures are all potential elements of the clinical response. (Grade D)</p> <p>Clinical psychiatric assessment should be considered, as the behaviour may be the presentation of a treatable condition such as anxiety or depression. (Grade D)</p> <p>Clinical psychological assessment should be considered both to identify the causation of the behaviour and to offer therapeutic strategies. (Grade D)</p> <hd id="AN0043198319-10">Impact of comorbidity</hd> <p>The co‐occurrence of epilepsy with other common physical and psychological conditions is common. All initial epilepsy assessments should identify these comorbid conditions as they may impact on treatment decision‐making and treatment outcome assessment. (Grade C)</p> <p>Psychiatric comorbidity, depression, anxiety, behaviour problems, autism and attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder are all relatively common in this population ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref20">22</reflink>]). The diagnoses of these conditions should be sound. Such confirmed comorbidities should be thoroughly treated optimising both nonpharmacological and pharmacological therapies. In the case where psychopharmacological interventions are deemed necessary, the risk for seizure worsening is in most cases small and needs to be balanced against the impact of chronic untreated psychological disorder. (Grade C)</p> <hd id="AN0043198319-11">Referral procedures for epilepsy surgery</hd> <p>The presence of ID is not a contraindication to neurosurgery for epilepsy. All patient fulfilling referral criteria should, on the basis of individualised assessment, be referred to appropriate specialist services. (Grade C)</p> <p>A key determinant in an individuals' ability to progress through to neurosurgery is to meet the criteria for neurosurgical procedure:</p> <p></p> <p>• 1</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Diagnosis of epilepsy must be ascertained;</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 2</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> An adequate trial of drug therapy; that is, the correct drugs used in the correct dosage, carefully monitored for an appropriate time; and</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 3</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The electroclinical syndrome must be defined. (Grade C)</item> </ulist> <p>If a patient is believed to be suitable for surgery an MRI scan is essential. MRI facilities able to provide anaesthetic cover should be available. (Grade B)</p> <hd id="AN0043198319-12">A syndromal approach to management</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0043198319-13">Lennox–Gastaut syndrome</hd> <p>No comparative evidence exists for the treatment of adults with seizures in Lennox–Gastaut syndrome. Level I evidence does exist for the impact of lamotrigine ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref21">15</reflink>]) and topiramate ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref22">19</reflink>]) on drop attacks. (Grade A)</p> <p>Rufinamide ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref23">8</reflink>]) has also been shown in a Level I study to have an impact on drop attacks in Lennox–Gastaut syndrome; however, it has only recently been released and clinical experience, to date, is limited. (Grade A)</p> <p>Level I evidence exists for felbamate ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref24">23</reflink>]); however, it is rarely used because of serious fatal side effects. Its use is only recommended in specialist centres. (Grade A)</p> <p>Other medications, which can be effective in generalised seizure disorders, and which can be used in Lennox–Gastaut syndrome, include sodium valproate, levetiracetam and zonisamide. (Grade C)</p> <p>It is not uncommon to see patients with Lennox–Gastaut syndrome on a range of therapy for both partial and generalised seizures. Cautious drug reduction may be tried for any drug that appears not to have worked in such patients in order to establish whether mono or duo therapy may prove as successful as multiple drug therapy, which is often associated with significant side effects in people with ID. (Grade C)</p> <hd id="AN0043198319-14">Down's syndrome and epilepsy</hd> <p>The treatment of epilepsy in people with DS follows general guidelines. The drug treatment is planned according the type of epilepsy or seizures. In dementia‐linked epilepsy, broad‐spectrum drugs (valproate, levetiracetam) should be used as first‐line drugs. If using valproate, keep the potential risk for chronic valproate encephalopathy, which may resemble a dementia‐like clinical picture, in mind. (Grade D)</p> <p>All adults with DS who present with epilepsy over the age of 30 should be screened for the presence of a coexisting dementia, usually of an Alzheimer's type. (Grade C)</p> <hd id="AN0043198319-15">Autism and epilepsy</hd> <p>Extreme diagnostic caution is needed in assessing whether behaviour associated with autism, such as an outburst of behaviour disturbance or repeated stereotypies might be due to epilepsy. A video of the events and ictal EEG are sometimes needed. In the absence of these tests decisions should only be made by a clinician expert in assessing the epilepsy diagnosis in patients with ID and autism with behavioural concerns. (Grade D)</p> <p>Assessing the impact of treatment change in individuals with autism is particularly difficult. A baseline assessment of behaviour and physical status is regarded as essential. (Grade D)</p> <p>There is no quality evidence to suggest that treatment with AEDs has an impact on autistic traits. (Grade D)</p> <hd id="AN0043198319-16">Conclusion</hd> <p>The management of epilepsy in people with an ID demands high professional standards across a range of clinical domains. This guideline has shown that consensus can be achieved in these areas by a range of professionals from differing countries. Unfortunately the quality of the available evidence is often very limited. Several key areas remain poorly served. These include, surprisingly, pharmacotherapy despite the huge reliance on such medication in this population. Additionally there is little information to support clinical decision‐making in areas of risk; this is most clear in issues relating to behavioural change such as forced normalisation where clinical decisions are made in an essentially evidence‐free setting. There is a mandate for those who fund as well as those who deliver health care to improve these gaps in our knowledge.</p> <ref id="AN0043198319-17"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref8" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Beavis J., Kerr M. & Marson A. G. (2007a) Non‐pharmacological interventions for epilepsy in people with intellectual disabilities. Cochrane Database Systematic Review 17, 4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref9" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Beavis J., Kerr M. & Marson A. G. (2007b) Pharmacological interventions for epilepsy in people with intellectual disabilities (Review). The Cochrane Library 3, 1 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref2" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bowley C. & Kerr M. (2000) Epilepsy and intellectual disability – a review. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 44, 1 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref5" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Clinical Guideline 20 (2004) The epilepsies: the diagnosis and management of the epilepsies in adults and children in primary and secondary care. Available at: <ulink href="http://www.nice.org.uk/CG020NICEguideline">http://www.nice.org.uk/CG020NICEguideline</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref10" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Dorris L., Scott N., Zuberi S. Gibson N. & Espie C. (2008) Sleep problems in children with neurological disorders. Developmental Neurorehabilitation 11, 95 – 114.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref15" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Espie C., Kerr M., Brien G., Betts T., Clark T., Berney T. et al. (1997) Learning disability and epilepsy. 2, a review of available outcome measures and position statements on development priorities. Seizure 6, 337 – 50.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref6" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Glauser T., Ben‐Menachem E., Bourgeois B., Cnaan A., Chadwick D., Guerreiro C. et al. (2006) ILAE treatment guidelines: evidence‐based analysis of antiepileptic drug efficacy and effectiveness as initial monotherapy for epileptic seizures and syndromes. Epilepsia 4, 1094 – 120.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref23" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Glauser T., Kluger G., Sachdeo R., Krauss G., Perdomo C. & Arroyo S. (2008) Rufinamide for generalized seizures associated with Lennox‐Gastaut syndrome. Neurology 70, 1950 – 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref3" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> IASSID Guidelines Group (2001) Clinical guidelines for the management of epilepsy in adults with an intellectual disability. Seizure 10, 401 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kerr M., Baker G. & Brodie M. D. (2005) A randomised double‐blind, placebo controlled trial of topiramate in adults with epilepsy and intellectual disability: impact on seizures, severity and quality of life. Epilepsy & Behavior 7, 472 – 80.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kerr M. P. & Espie C. A. (1997) Learning disabilities and epilepsy. 1, towards common outcome measures. Seizure 6, 331 – 6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kwan P. & Brodie M. J. (2000) Early identification of refractory epilepsy. New England Journal of Medicine 342, 314 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lhatoo S. & Sander W. (2001) The epidemiology of epilepsy and learning disability. Epilepsia 42, 6 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lux A. L. & Osborne J. P. (2004) A proposal for case definitions and outcome measures in studies of infantile spasms and West syndrome: consensus statement of the West Delphi group. Epilepsia 45, 1416 – 28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Motte J., Trevathan E., Arvidsson J. F., Barrera M. N., Mullens E. L. & Manasco P. (1997) Lamotrigine for generalized seizures associated with the Lennox‐Gastaut syndrome. Lamictal Lennox‐Gastaut Study Group. New England Journal of Medicine 337, 1807 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mula M. & Sander J. W. (2007) Negative effects of antiepileptic drugs on mood in patients with epilepsy. Drug Safety 30, 555 – 67.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patsalos P. N., Berry D. J., Bourgeois B. F., Cloyd J. C., Glauser T. A., Johannessen S. I. et al. (2008) Antiepileptic drugs – best practice guidelines for therapeutic drug monitoring: a position paper by the subcommission on therapeutic drug monitoring, ILAE Commission on Therapeutic Strategies. Epilepsia 49, 1239 – 76.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perucca E. (2006) Clinically relevant drug interactions with antiepileptic drugs. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 61, 246 – 55.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sachdeo R. C., Glauser T. A., Ritter F., Reife R., Lim P. & Pledger G. (1999) A double‐blind, randomized trial of topiramate in Lennox‐Gastaut syndrome. Topiramate YL Study Group. Neurology 52, 1882 – 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> S.I.G.N. (2003) Diagnosis and management of epilepsy in adults. Guideline No 70 April 2003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Silva M., MacArdle B., McGowan M., Hughes E., Stewart J., Neville B. G. et al. (1996) Randomised comparative monotherapy trial of phenobarbitone, phenytoin, carbamazepine, or sodium valproate for newly diagnosed childhood epilepsy. Lancet 347, 709 – 13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smiley E., Cooper S. A., Finlayson J., Jackson A., Allan L., Mantry D. et al. (2007) Incidence and predictors of mental ill‐health in adults with intellectual disabilities: prospective study. British Journal of Psychiatry 191, 313 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The Felbamate Study Group in Lennox‐Gastaut Syndrome (1993) Efficacy of felbamate in childhood epileptic encephalopathy (Lennox‐Gastaut syndrome). New England Journal of Medicine 328, 29 – 33.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By M. Kerr; M. Scheepers; M. Arvio; J. Beavis; C. Brandt; S. Brown; B. Huber; M. Iivanainen; A. C. Louisse; P. Martin; A. G. Marson; V. Prasher; B. K. Singh; M. Veendrick and R. A. Wallace</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref24"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ848018
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Consensus Guidelines into the Management of Epilepsy in Adults with an Intellectual Disability
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kerr%2C+M%2E%22">Kerr, M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Scheepers%2C+M%2E%22">Scheepers, M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Arvio%2C+M%2E%22">Arvio, M.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Intellectual+Disability+Research%22"><i>Journal of Intellectual Disability Research</i></searchLink>. Aug 2009 53(8):687-694.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: PhysDesc
  Label: Physical Description
  Group: PhysDesc
  Data: PDF
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 8
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2009
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Delphi+Technique%22">Delphi Technique</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Epilepsy%22">Epilepsy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mental+Retardation%22">Mental Retardation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Guidelines%22">Guidelines</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adults%22">Adults</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Health+Services%22">Health Services</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Health+Needs%22">Health Needs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Needs%22">Research Needs</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2009.01182.x
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0964-2633
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: Epilepsy has a pervasive impact on the lives of people with intellectual disability and their carers. The delivery of high-quality care is impacted on by the complexity and diversity of epilepsy in this population. This article presents the results of a consensus clinical guideline process. Results: A Delphi process identified a list of priority areas for the development of evidence-based guidelines. All guidelines were graded and consensus on scoring was achieved across the guideline group. Conclusion: There is a dearth of high-quality evidence from well-constructed studies on which to base guidance. However, the development of internationally derived consensus guidelines may further support the management of epilepsy in adults with an intellectual disability.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 24
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2009
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ848018
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ848018
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2009.01182.x
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 8
        StartPage: 687
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Delphi Technique
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Epilepsy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mental Retardation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Guidelines
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adults
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Health Services
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Health Needs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Needs
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Consensus Guidelines into the Management of Epilepsy in Adults with an Intellectual Disability
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kerr, M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Scheepers, M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Arvio, M.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2009
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0964-2633
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 53
            – Type: issue
              Value: 8
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1