Purpose: Research into epilepsy has experienced decades of chronic underfunding compared to other neurological conditions despite its prevalence and seriousness. To evidence the need for greater investment, the Epilepsy Research Institute (formerly Epilepsy Research UK) funded, led and managed a James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP). This “industry standard” methodology brings together healthcare professionals, patients, carers and patient group representatives to identify and prioritise research uncertainties within a defined area of health or care.Methods: The UK Epilepsy PSP is a once-in-a-generation, national consensus that collated and ranked the research priorities of the UK epilepsy and associated condition community. Following JLA methodology, this 18-month project engaged over 100 patient groups and 5,000 people affected by and working in epilepsy, including medics and allied healthcare professionals, from across the UK.Results: Over 5,400 priorities were received, with anti-seizure medication, sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) and epilepsy in women among the most frequently reported themes. The responses received were categorised and translated into distinct, researchable questions. Questions were excluded if deemed to be “answered” following an evidence check, while research uncertainties (i.e. unanswered and partially answered questions) formed the basis of a second, shortlisting survey. The shortlisted questions were then discussed and debated at the final workshop by participants that broadly represented the UK epilepsy and associated condition community. The final ranking and Top Ten priorities for research into epilepsy were then agreed.Conclusion: The aim of the UK Epilepsy PSP is to encourage and inspire researchers to investigate the research areas prioritised by those most affected by the condition and provide the evidence of need to aid future policy making discussions and support research funding applications.

At present, there is no internationally accepted set of core outcomes or measurement methods for epilepsy clinical practice. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) convened an international working group of experts in epilepsy, people with epilepsy, and their representatives to develop minimum sets of standardized outcomes and outcome measurement methods for clinical practice. Using modified Delphi consensus methods with consecutive rounds of online voting over 12 months, a core set of outcomes and corresponding measurement tool packages to capture the outcomes were identified for infants, children, and adolescents with epilepsy. Consensus methods identified 20 core outcomes. In addition to the outcomes identified for the ICHOM Epilepsy adult standard set, behavioral, motor, and cognitive/language development outcomes were voted as essential for all infants and children with epilepsy. The proposed set of outcomes and measurement methods will facilitate the implementation of the use of patient-centered outcomes in daily practice.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to update overall incidence and prevalence calculations for epilepsy of the United Kingdom (UK) and its constituent nations (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales).Methods: We used data from primary care practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CRPD), based on the electronic health records of 14 million patients, representing approximately 20% of the population. CPRD contains data from two different health record systems: the Vision clinical system (CPRD GOLD database) and the EMIS Web (R) clinical system (CPRD Aurum database). We calculated incidence and prevalence rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Data were stratified by age, gender, deprivation, country (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) and region (England only).Results: In the UK, the estimated overall point prevalence for epilepsy was 9.37 per 1000 persons / year (95% CI 9.34-9.40) and the overall estimated incidence rate was 42.68 per 100,000 person-years (95% 42.18-43.18) using the CPRD GOLD database. In England, the estimated incidence (37.41 (95% CI 36.96-37.83)) and prevalence (8.85 (95% CI 8.83-8.87)) was lower (combined databases) compared to figures for Scotland (incidence 47.76 (95% CI 46.15-49.42)); prevalence 10.13 (95% CI 10.06-10.20)) (CPRD GOLD only), Wales (incidence 54.84 (95% CI 52.79-56.95); prevalence 11.40 (95% CI 11.31-11.49)) (CPRD GOLD only) and Northern Ireland (incidence 46.18 (95% CI 43.13-49.90); prevalence 12.08 (95% CI 11.93-12.23))(combined databases). Prevalence and incidence were higher in more deprived regions.Conclusion: The prevalence and incidence of epilepsy in the UK is broadly in line with other high income countries, showing the usual pattern of high incidence in the young and the old, with a nadir in middle age. The prevalence of epilepsy has fallen slightly since 2011. There is significant geographical variation (between countries and between regions), and a suggestion of a relationship between deprivation and epilepsy which needs further investigation.

BackgroundThere is increasing recognition of the importance of delivering value-based health care, where value is assessed by measuring health outcomes against the cost of delivery. This approach can reduce healthcare utilisation.MethodsThe International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement convened an international working group of experts in epilepsy, people with epilepsy and their representatives. The group developed minimum sets of standardised outcomes and outcome measurement methods to support clinical decision making and quality improvement. The focus was to ensure international applicability, with a preference for measurement tools that have been validated in many settings, cultures, and languages. Measurement tools that capture all core outcomes were identified through Delphi based online consensus methods, with consecutive rounds of voting supplemented by open discussion and external validation surveys.Results22 core outcomes were identified, of which many non-seizure outcomes were included: anxiety, depression, suicidality, memory and attention, sleep quality, somnolence, and neurodevelopmental status. Measurement tools including PROMS were recommended based on their evidence of strong measurement properties, feasibility, acceptability to people with epilepsy and cross-cultural applicability. Different age-appropriate measurement instruments have been recommended for infants, children, adolescents and adults with epilepsy.ConclusionImplementing this set of outcomes and measurement methods in practice should establish the use of patient-centred outcomes and ensure holistic care. Widespread adoption of consistent outcome measurement can facilitate big-data science, accelerate comparative research and lead to improved care.

Background: Nearly a quarter of people with intellectual disability (ID) have epilepsy with large numbers experiencing drug-resistant epilepsy, and premature mortality. To mitigate epilepsy risks the environment and social care needs, particularly in professional care settings, need to be met. Purpose: To compare professional care groups as regards their subjective confidence and perceived responsibility when managing the need of people with ID and epilepsy. Method: A multi-agency expert panel developed a questionnaire with embedded case vignettes with quantitative and qualitative elements to understand training and confidence in the health and social determinants of people with ID and epilepsy. The cross-sectional survey was disseminated amongst health and social care professionals working with people with ID in the UK using an exponential nondiscriminative snow-balling methodology. Group comparisons were undertaken using suitable statistical tests including Fisher's exact, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney. Bonferroni correction was applied to significant (p < 0.05) results. Content analysis was conducted and relevant categories and themes were identified. Results: Social and health professionals (n = 54) rated their confidence to manage the needs of people with ID and epilepsy equally. Health professionals showed better awareness (p < 0.001) of the findings/recommendations of the latest evidence on premature deaths and identifying and managing epilepsy-related risks, including the relevance of nocturnal monitoring. The content analysis highlighted the need for clearer roles, improved care pathways, better epilepsy-specific knowledge, increased resources, and better multi-disciplinary work. Conclusions: A gap exists between health and social care professionals in awareness of epilepsy needs for people with ID, requiring essential training and national pathways. & COPY; 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

BACKGROUND:The development of a nurse-led approach to managing epilepsy in adults with an intellectual disability (ID) offers the potential of improved outcomes and lower costs of care. We undertook a cluster randomised trial to assess the impact on costs and outcomes of the provision of ID nurses working to a designated epilepsy nurse competency framework. Here, we report the impact of the intervention on costs.METHOD:Across the United Kingdom, eight sites randomly allocated to the intervention recruited 184 participants and nine sites allocated to treatment as usual recruited 128 participants. Cost and outcome data were collected mainly by telephone interview at baseline and after 6 months. Total costs at 6 months were compared from the perspective of health and social services and society, with adjustments for pre-specified participant and cluster characteristics at baseline including costs. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Uncertainty was quantified by bootstrapping.RESULTS:The intervention was associated with lower per participant costs from a health and social services perspective of -£357 (2014/2015 GBP) (95% confidence interval -£986, £294) and from a societal perspective of -£631 (95% confidence interval -£1473, £181). Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of accommodation costs.CONCLUSIONS:Our findings suggest that the competency framework is unlikely to increase the cost of caring for people with epilepsy and ID and may reduce costs.