Wagner Adam P, Croudace Tim J, Bateman Naomi, Pennington Mark W, Prince Elizabeth, Redley Marcus, White Simon R, Ring Howard
National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East of England, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2017 Jul 3;12(7):e0180266. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180266. eCollection 2017.
Intellectual disability (ID) is relatively common in people with epilepsy, with prevalence estimated to be around 25%. Surprisingly, given this relatively high frequency, along with higher rates of refractory epilepsy than in those without ID, little is known about outcomes of different management approaches/clinical services treating epilepsy in adults with ID-we investigate this area.
MATERIALS & METHODS: We undertook a naturalistic observational cohort study measuring outcomes in n = 91 adults with ID over a 7-month period (recruited within the period March 2008 to April 2010). Participants were receiving treatment for refractory epilepsy (primarily) in one of two clinical service settings: community ID teams (CIDTs) or hospital Neurology services.
The pattern of comorbidities appeared important in predicting clinical service, with Neurologists managing the epilepsy of relatively more of those with neurological comorbidities whilst CIDTs managed the epilepsy of relatively more of those with psychiatric comorbidities. Epilepsy-related outcomes, as measured by the Glasgow Epilepsy Outcome Scale 35 (GEOS-35) and the Epilepsy and Learning Disabilities Quality of Life Scale (ELDQoL) did not differ significantly between Neurology services and CIDTs.
In the context of this study, the absence of evidence for differences in epilepsy-related outcomes amongst adults with ID and refractory epilepsy between mainstream neurology and specialist ID clinical services is considered. Determining the selection of the service managing the epilepsy of adults with an ID on the basis of the skill sets also required to treat associated comorbidities may hence be a reasonable heuristic.
智力残疾(ID)在癫痫患者中相对常见,估计患病率约为25%。令人惊讶的是,鉴于这一相对较高的频率,以及与非ID患者相比更高的难治性癫痫发生率,对于治疗成年ID患者癫痫的不同管理方法/临床服务的结果知之甚少——我们对这一领域进行了调查。
我们进行了一项自然观察队列研究,在7个月期间(2008年3月至2010年4月招募)测量了n = 91名成年ID患者的结果。参与者主要在两种临床服务环境之一接受难治性癫痫治疗:社区ID团队(CIDTs)或医院神经科服务。
共病模式在预测临床服务方面似乎很重要,神经科医生管理相对更多有神经共病患者的癫痫,而CIDTs管理相对更多有精神共病患者的癫痫。通过格拉斯哥癫痫结果量表35(GEOS - 35)和癫痫与学习障碍生活质量量表(ELDQoL)测量的癫痫相关结果在神经科服务和CIDTs之间没有显著差异。
在本研究的背景下,考虑了主流神经科和专科ID临床服务之间,ID和难治性癫痫成年患者在癫痫相关结果上没有差异的证据缺失情况。因此,根据治疗相关共病所需的技能组合来确定管理ID成年患者癫痫的服务选择可能是一种合理的启发式方法。