Suppr超能文献

抗药性癫痫的深部脑刺激和反应性神经刺激方法的获取机会存在差异。

Disparities in Access to Deep Brain Stimulation and Responsive Neurostimulation Approaches to Drug-Resistant Epilepsy.

机构信息

Department of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.

Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.

出版信息

Neuromodulation. 2024 Jun;27(4):792-799. doi: 10.1016/j.neurom.2023.11.007. Epub 2023 Dec 28.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy affects 1% to 2% of the global population, and those who are resistant to medical treatment may be candidates for neuromodulation. In select populations, brain stimulation approaches including deep brain stimulation (DBS) and responsive neurostimulation (RNS) are used. Although studies have shown that patients from Black, Hispanic, lower income, and rural communities have less access to epilepsy care and have lower rates of epilepsy surgery, disparities in the use of brain stimulation for epilepsy treatment are currently not known.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We queried the US National Inpatient Sample data base from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2019 for all patients discharged with an International Classification of Diseases (ICD) Ninth Revision or ICD Tenth Revision diagnosis of drug-resistant epilepsy. Among these patients discharged, the rates of brain stimulation treatment, including DBS and RNS, were reported in each subgroup of race, ethnicity, and insurance. To generate national estimates, all analyses were weighted.

RESULTS

A total of 237,895 patients discharged with drug-resistant epilepsy were identified, of whom 4,925 (2.1%) received brain stimulation treatment for drug-resistant epilepsy. Black patients (n = 420, 0.9%, odds ratio [OR] = 0.51, 95% CI [0.40, 0.64]) were less likely to receive brain stimulation treatment than were White patients (n = 3300, 2.4%). There was no significant difference between Asian (n = 105, 2.3%, OR = 0.80, 95% CI [0.53, 1.33]) and Hispanic (n = 655, 2.6%, OR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.77, 1.17]) patients and White patients. No significant difference was observed between female (n = 2515, 2.1%, OR = 1.02, 95% CI [0.89, 1.17]) and male (n = 2410, 2.0%) patients either. Patients with Medicare (n = 1150, 1.2%, OR = 0.69, 95% CI [0.57, 0.84]) or Medicaid (n = 1150, 1.8%, OR = 0.52, 95% CI [0.44, 0.62]) were less likely to receive brain stimulation treatment than were those with private insurance as the primary payer (n = 2370, 3.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

We discovered significant disparities in the use of brain stimulation treatments for drug-resistant epilepsy based on race and insurance status. More research will be required to determine the cause of these disparities.

摘要

背景

癫痫影响全球 1%至 2%的人口,那些对药物治疗有抗药性的人可能是神经调节的候选者。在特定人群中,包括深部脑刺激 (DBS) 和反应性神经刺激 (RNS) 在内的脑刺激方法被用于治疗癫痫。尽管研究表明,来自黑人、西班牙裔、低收入和农村社区的患者获得癫痫护理的机会较少,癫痫手术的比例较低,但目前尚不清楚在癫痫治疗中使用脑刺激的差异。

材料和方法

我们从 2014 年 1 月 1 日至 2019 年 12 月 31 日,对美国国家住院患者样本数据库进行了查询,以获取所有出院时国际疾病分类 (ICD) 第九版或 ICD 第十版诊断为药物难治性癫痫的患者。在这些出院的患者中,报告了种族、族裔和保险的每个亚组中脑刺激治疗(包括 DBS 和 RNS)的比率。为了生成全国估计值,对所有分析进行了加权。

结果

共确定了 237895 名出院时患有药物难治性癫痫的患者,其中 4925 名(2.1%)接受了脑刺激治疗药物难治性癫痫。黑人患者(n=420,0.9%,比值比[OR]0.51,95%CI [0.40,0.64])比白人患者(n=3300,2.4%)接受脑刺激治疗的可能性更小。亚洲患者(n=105,2.3%,OR=0.80,95%CI [0.53,1.33])和西班牙裔患者(n=655,2.6%,OR=0.95,95%CI [0.77,1.17])与白人患者之间无显著差异。女性患者(n=2515,2.1%,OR=1.02,95%CI [0.89,1.17])与男性患者(n=2410,2.0%)之间也无显著差异。医疗保险患者(n=1150,1.2%,OR=0.69,95%CI [0.57,0.84])或医疗补助患者(n=1150,1.8%,OR=0.52,95%CI [0.44,0.62])接受脑刺激治疗的可能性低于私人保险为主要支付者(n=2370,3.9%)的患者。

结论

我们发现,基于种族和保险状况,在药物难治性癫痫的脑刺激治疗使用方面存在显著差异。需要进一步研究以确定这些差异的原因。

相似文献

1
Disparities in Access to Deep Brain Stimulation and Responsive Neurostimulation Approaches to Drug-Resistant Epilepsy.
Neuromodulation. 2024 Jun;27(4):792-799. doi: 10.1016/j.neurom.2023.11.007. Epub 2023 Dec 28.
4
Disparities in the treatment of movement disorders using deep brain stimulation.
J Neurosurg. 2024 Feb 2;141(1):241-251. doi: 10.3171/2023.11.JNS23882. Print 2024 Jul 1.
8
A systematic review of deep brain stimulation for the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy in childhood.
J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2019 Mar 1;23(3):274-284. doi: 10.3171/2018.9.PEDS18417. Epub 2018 Nov 30.
9
Does Medicare Insurance Mitigate Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Access to Lumbar Spinal Surgery When Compared to Commercial Insurance?
Clin Spine Surg. 2024 Aug 1;37(7):E303-E308. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001576. Epub 2024 Feb 19.
10
Invasive neuromodulation for epilepsy: Comparison of multiple approaches from a single center.
Epilepsy Behav. 2022 Dec;137(Pt A):108951. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2022.108951. Epub 2022 Oct 27.

引用本文的文献

1
Shining a Light: Advancing Health Equity in Overlooked Epilepsy Communities.
Epilepsy Curr. 2024 Jun 14:15357597241258081. doi: 10.1177/15357597241258081.

本文引用的文献

3
Disparities in the nationwide distribution of epilepsy centers.
Epilepsy Behav. 2021 Dec;125:108409. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2021.108409. Epub 2021 Nov 14.
5
The Impact of Responsive Neurostimulation on the Treatment of Epilepsy.
Neurol India. 2020 Nov-Dec;68(Supplement):S278-S281. doi: 10.4103/0028-3886.302468.
6
The southern rural health and mortality penalty: A review of regional health inequities in the United States.
Soc Sci Med. 2021 Jan;268:113443. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113443. Epub 2020 Oct 23.
7
Vagus nerve stimulation in epilepsy: Efficiency and safety of outpatient practice.
Neurochirurgie. 2020 Aug;66(4):270-274. doi: 10.1016/j.neuchi.2020.04.134. Epub 2020 Jul 2.
8
Neuromodulation for the Treatment of Epilepsy: A Review of Current Approaches and Future Directions.
Clin Ther. 2020 Jul;42(7):1140-1154. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.05.017. Epub 2020 Jun 30.
9
Poverty, insurance, and region as predictors of epilepsy treatment among US adults.
Epilepsy Behav. 2020 Jun;107:107050. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2020.107050. Epub 2020 Apr 12.
10
Vagus Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Epilepsy.
Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2019 Apr;30(2):219-230. doi: 10.1016/j.nec.2018.12.005.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验