Clinician, patient, and carer views on neuromodulation for epilepsy: is there rationale for a randomised controlled trial of VNS vs. DBS?

临床医生、患者和护理人员对癫痫神经调控的看法:进行 VNS 与 DBS 的随机对照试验是否有合理性?

阅读:1

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to gather UK clinician, patient, and carer perspectives on vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) to inform the design of clinical trials comparing these treatments for drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). RESEARCH QUESTION: To assess stakeholder views on these treatments and their willingness to participate in a clinical trial comparing VNS and DBS for DRE. METHODS: Two surveys were conducted: one for clinicians in neurology, neurophysiology, and neurosurgery, and another for patients/carers. The estimated response rates were 2.7% and 0.008% for the surveys respectively. RESULTS: Among the 32 clinician responses all agreed VNS has a role in treating DRE, as did 94% for DBS. While 84% felt VNS had sufficient evidence for routine use, only 23% said the same for DBS. Median minimum age for treatment consideration was 5 years for VNS and 8 years for DBS. Clinicians agreed on the proposed trial's scientific validity (median Likert score 4/5) and interest in efficacy comparison (5/5); 72% would refer patients for the trial. Of the 38 patient/carer responses, 13% had VNS. Around one-third would consider VNS (32%) or DBS (34%). Concerns included procedure anxiety, side effects, and battery changes. While 53% were willing to enter the proposed trial, 84% preferred to choose their treatment.Key outcomes identified included seizure reduction, seizure freedom, quality of life, and SUDEP risk. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Clinician, patient, and carer insights highlight the need for robust evidence on VNS and DBS efficacy. These findings will guide future trials in managing DRE.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。