Abstract
Background
This study aimed to determine the relationship among the clinical, logistic, and psychological impacts of COVID-19 on people with epilepsy (PWE), and the impact of COVID-19 on the quality of life.
Method
This is a cross-sectional anonymized web-based study on PWE, using an online questionnaire to assess the clinical, logistic, and psychological impacts of COVID-19, including Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) and Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory (QOLIE-31).
Result
461 patients were recruited, with a mean age of 39.21 ± 15.88 years, majority female (50.1%), with focal epilepsy (54.0%), and experienced seizures at least once yearly (62.5%). There were 13.0% experienced seizure worsening during COVID-19 period, which were associated with baseline seizures frequency ≥ 1 per month (32.0% vs. 6.2%, p < 0.001), worries of seizure worsening (18.0% vs. 10.9%, p < 0.001), difficulty to go emergency unit (24.4% vs. 10.4%, p < 0.001), AEDs ran out of stock (23.2% vs. 11.6%, p < 0.05), self-adjustment of AED dosages (26.4% vs. 11.3%, p < 0.001), inadequate sleep (22.4% vs. 9.2%, p < 0.001), and stress (23.4% vs.10.1%, p < 0.01). Participants experiencing seizure worsening reported greater anxiety (8.10 ± 5.011 vs. 4.84 ± 3.989, p < 0.001) and depression (6.05 ± 3.868 vs. 3.86 ± 3.589, p < 0.001). Logistic regression showed baseline seizures frequency >1 per month (OR, 14.10) followed by anxiety (OR, 3.90), inadequate sleep (OR, 0.37), and treated in UMMC (OR, 0.31) as the predictors for seizure worsening during COVID-19 period. Poorer total QOLIE-31 score was noted in those with seizure worsening (48.01 ± 13.040 vs. 62.15 ± 15.222, p < 0.001). Stepwise regression highlighted depression as the main negative predictor for quality of life (β = −0.372, p < 0.001), followed by anxiety (β = -0.345, p < 0.001).
Conclusion
A significant number of PWE experienced seizure worsening during COVID-19 period, which was related to the clinical, logistic, and psychological factors. Quality of life was affected by the seizure worsening and the psychological stress.
Keywords: COVID-19, Epilepsy, Seizure control, Quality of life, Depression, Anxiety
1. Introduction
Epilepsy is a chronic illness requiring regular monitoring of seizure control, antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and its side effects, and psychosocial comorbidities [1]. Since the first reported case of coronavirus disease 2019 (2019-nCoV) in Wuhan, China on 8 December 2019, the outbreak has spread around the world [2]. In Malaysia, the government took stringent precautionary measures to combat the spread of this disease by implementing the movement restriction control order (MCO) on 18th March 2020 through mandatory social distancing and lockdown [3].
The complete restriction of movement and assembly resulted in postponement of healthcare visits in Malaysia, similarly in many other countries. This unprecedented loss of access to healthcare is postulated to give rise to worsening seizure control and anxiety, which were reported in many countries in most continents, including China [4], [5], [6], Hong Kong [7], Pakistan [8], and Saudi Arabia [9] in Asia, Brazil [10] in South America, Spain [11], [12] and Italy [13] in Europe, and United Stated of America [14]. However, most studies analyze mainly the direct impact of AEDs on the psychological and clinical consequences, but not the access to emergency and outpatient services.
Therefore, we aimed to determine the relationship among the clinical, logistic, and psychological impacts of COVID-19 on people with epilepsy (PWE) in Malaysia, which is an upper middle-income country located in southeast Asia, adopting the British public-health medical services. In addition, we also aimed to study the impact of COVID-19 on the quality of life in PWE. To the best of our knowledge, the impact of COVID-19 on the quality of life in PWE has never been reported before.
2. Methodology
2.1. Sampling and framework
This is a cross-sectional anonymized web-based study involving 461 PWE, 18 years and above, can read English, Bahasa Malaysia, and Mandarin, with a diagnosis of epilepsy certified by neurologists, and were treated in adult neurology clinic in University Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC) or a member of the Malaysian Epilepsy Society (MES). MES is the national epilepsy society for PWE and their family members. Those who refused or unable to provide consent, or without a history of seizures were excluded. This study was approved by the University Malaya Medical Ethics Committee (MECID. No. 2020420–8539).
The recruitment was performed using convenience sampling. The invitation links to online questionnaires were sent via short messages (SMS), email or Facebook. Patients with epilepsy in the clinic were also approached physically. Participants have an option to leave their contact details at the end of the survey or to remain anonymous.
2.2. Measures
An online questionnaire was designed to assess the clinical, logistic, and psychological impacts of COVID-19 on PWE. Informed consent was obtained online prior to the study. Socio-demographic and clinical information were collected. The impacts of COVID-19 were assessed in 3 sections, included (1) clinical impact: seizure control, (2) logistic impact: access to clinic appointment, emergency services, and AED supply, and (3) psychological impact: assessed using validated Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) and Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory (QOLIE-31). This questionnaire was sent to PWE from June 7 to July 5, 2020, 134 days after the first COVID-19 case was confirmed in Malaysia and 81 days since the implementation of MCO, with a reported 8, 663 cumulative cases as of July 5.
2.2.1. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)
Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) is used as a tool to measure anxiety and depression in patients with general medical condition [15]. It is a 14-item self-administered questionnaire consisting of two subscales, anxiety and depression. The subscale of anxiety focused on symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder and subscale of depression focused on anhedonia, and main symptoms of depression. Each item was scored on a response-scale with four alternatives ranging between 0 and 3. The responses were summed to obtain the total score for each subscale. The total score for each subscale were then categorized into normal (0–7), and abnormal – borderline (8–10) and definite (11–21). HADS was validated in epilepsy cohort, age 18 years and above, with high internal consistency reported for HAD-Anxiety (Cronbach’s α = 0.88) and HAD-Depression (Cronbach's α = 0.82) [16].
2.2.2. Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory (QOLIE-31)
The QOLIE-31 has been widely cited as a reliable instrument (Cronbach’s α = 0.93) to assess epilepsy-related QOL [17]. It is a 31-item self-administered questionnaire clustered in seven subscales in the following domains: seizure worry (five items), emotional well-being (five items), energy/fatigue (four items), cognitive functioning (six items), medication effects (three items), social functioning (five items), and overall QOL (two items). The seven subscales generate a QOLIE-31 overall score representing the overall epilepsy-related quality of life. Each subscale and the overall score range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better wellbeing.
2.3. Operational definition
Baseline seizure frequency was defined as the frequency of seizures in the previous 12 months before COVID-19 outbreak. Seizure control during COVID-19 period was determined based on the changes of seizure frequency, duration, or severity. Seizure worsening was defined with an increased in seizure frequency, duration, or severity.
2.4. Sample size calculation
The sample size was calculated to achieve an alpha level of 0.05 and a power of 0.80 in a two-tailed independent t-test. The effect size (Cohen’s d) was assumed to be 0.35 to detect a low to medium effect. A minimum of 260 samples were needed to achieve these parameters.
2.5. Analyses and results
Statistical analysis using IBM® SPSS® Statistics software (version 25.0) was performed with significance level defined at 0.05. All demographic data were analyzed descriptively, with nominal data presented as frequencies and percentages and continuous data presented as means and standard variations. For continuous data, independent t-tests were used for group comparison. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was carried out to ascertain the significant predictors for seizure worsening during COVID-19 period. Variables associated with a p < 0.05 in the univariate analysis were entered in a forward stepwise multiple logistic regression model. Stepwise linear regression analysis was carried out to ascertain whether seizure control during COVID-19 period and the psychological factors predicted quality of life (QOLIE-31 score).
2.6. Multinational comparison on clinical and psychological impacts on epilepsy
A literature search was performed on recent studies reporting the clinical or psychological impacts of COVID-19 on people with epilepsy. The clinical impact was defined as the percentage of participants with either increased seizure frequency or worsening seizure control. Psychological impacts were determined by the percentages of participants who were screened positive for or reported anxiety and depression using various psychological scales. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita was accessed from the International Monetary Fund report in October 2020 [18].
3. Results
A total of 461 patients were included in this study, with a respondent rate of 64.8%. The mean age was 39.21 ± 15.88 years, and 50.1% were female, majority Chinese (45.1%), single (57.5%), with secondary education level or lower (55.5%), and 39.7% employed. The mean age of seizure onset was 20.85 ± 15.72 years. Majority had focal epilepsy (54.0%), experienced seizures at least once yearly (62.5%), with abnormal EEG (67.2%) and neuroimaging results (55.1%). A hundred ninety (41.2%) had tried at least 3 types of AEDs for seizure control while another 12.4% had epilepsy surgery. None of our patients or their care takers reported being infected with SARS-CoV-2 at the time of data collection (Table 1 ).
Table 1.
Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the participants, and the clinical, logistic, and psychological impacts of COVID-19 pandemic (N = 461).
| Mean ± Standard Deviation | ||
|---|---|---|
| Age (Year) | 39.21 ± 15.88 | |
| N (%) | ||
| Gender | ||
| Male | 230 (49.9) | |
| Female | 231 (50.1) | |
| Race | ||
| Malay | 139 (30.2) | |
| Chinese | 208 (45.1) | |
| Indian | 103 (22.3) | |
| Native | 2 (0.4) | |
| Others | 9 (2.0) | |
| Marital Status | ||
| Single | 265 (57.5) | |
| Others | 196 (42.5) | |
| Highest Education Attained | ||
| Postgraduate | 15 (3.3) | |
| Degree | 115 (24.9) | |
| A Level/STPM/Diploma | 75 (16.3) | |
| Secondary | 194 (42.1) | |
| Primary | 31 (6.7) | |
| No formal education | 31 (6.7) | |
| Employment Status | ||
| Full time student | 42 (9.1) | |
| Employed full time | 162 (35.1) | |
| Employed part time | 21 (4.6) | |
| Full time house duties/Housewife | 22 (4.8) | |
| Retired | 63 (13.7) | |
| Unemployed | 151 (32.8) | |
| Clinical characteristics | ||
| Frequency of seizures before COVID-19 outbreak | ||
| No seizure for at least a year | 173 (37.5) | |
| Less than once a month | 166 (36.0) | |
| One or more seizures a month | 122 (26.5) | |
| Type of seizure | ||
| Focal | 249 (54.0) | |
| Generalized | 193 (41.9) | |
| Unsure | 19 (4.1) | |
| EEG Results | ||
| Abnormal | 310 (67.2) | |
| Normal | 106 (23.0) | |
| Unsure/Not done | 45 (9.8) | |
| CT scan/MRI Results | ||
| Abnormal | 254 (55.1) | |
| Normal | 138 (29.9) | |
| Unsure/Not done | 69 (15.0) | |
| Types of medication tried (Before and Now) | ||
| 1 | 144 (31.2) | |
| 2 | 127 (27.5) | |
| 3 or more | 190 (41.2) | |
| Surgery to control seizure | ||
| Yes | 57 (12.4) | |
| No | 402 (87.2) | |
| Unsure | 2 (0.4) | |
| Clinical impact | ||
| Seizure Frequency | ||
| More frequent | 51 (11.1) | |
| No change | 115 (24.9) | |
| Less frequent | 79 (17.1) | |
| No seizure | 216 (46.9) | |
| Seizure Duration | ||
| Longer | 20 (4.3) | |
| No change | 157 (34.1) | |
| Shorter | 63 (13.7) | |
| No seizure | 221 (47.9) | |
| Seizure Severity | ||
| More severe | 34 (7.4) | |
| No change | 148 (32.1) | |
| Less severe | 56 (12.1) | |
| No seizure | 223 (48.4) | |
| Seizure Worsening* | ||
| Yes | 60 (13.0) | |
| No | 401 (87.0) | |
| Causes of seizures worsening | ||
| Not enough sleep | 125 (28.3) | |
| Stress | 107 (24.0) | |
| Missed medication dosage | 62 (14.1) | |
| Inadequate medication supply | 10 (2.3) | |
| Fever | 24 (5.5) | |
| Physical tiredness | 86 (19.5) | |
| Diet | 23 (5.2) | |
| Unsure | 76 (17.2) | |
| Seizure no change | 181 (40.2) | |
| No seizure | 18 (4.1) | |
| Others; | 13 (10.4) | |
| Logistic Impact | ||
| Difficulty re-schedule clinic appointments | ||
| Strongly disagree | 76 (16.5) | |
| Disagree | 106 (23.0) | |
| Neutral | 159 (34.5) | |
| Agree | 73 (15.8) | |
| Strongly agree | 47 (10.2) | |
| Worries seizures get worse because my clinic appointments were postponed | ||
| Strongly disagree | ||
| Disagree | 86 (18.7) | |
| Neutral | 103 (22.3) | |
| Agree | 133 (28.9) | |
| Strongly agree | 93 (20.2) | |
| 46 (10.0) | ||
| Access to online or tele-consultation | ||
| Never | 284 (61.6) | |
| Occasionally | 57 (12.4) | |
| Sometimes | 69 (15.0) | |
| Often | 28 (6.1) | |
| Always | 23 (5.0) | |
| Afraid to go to Emergency Unit | ||
| Strongly disagree | 93 (20.2) | |
| Disagree | 118 (25.6) | |
| Neutral | 117 (25.4) | |
| Agree | 80 (17.4) | |
| Strongly agree | 53 (11.5) | |
| Difficulty to go to Emergency Unit | ||
| Strongly disagree | 105 (22.8) | |
| Disagree | 128 (27.8) | |
| Neutral | 142 (30.8) | |
| Agree | 59 (12.8) | |
| Strongly agree | 27 (5.9) | |
| Understand need to go to Emergency Unit | ||
| Yes | 372 (80.7) | |
| No | 89 (19.3) | |
| Adequately informed on what to do in the event of seizures | ||
| Yes | 363 (78.7) | |
| No | 98 (21.3) | |
| Obtain supply of medications from | ||
| University Malaya Medical Centre | 407 (88.3) | |
| Other university hospital | 5 (1.1) | |
| Ministry of Health Malaysia hospital or clinic | 24 (5.2) | |
| Private hospital or clinic | 5 (1.1) | |
| Private pharmacies | 20 (4.3) | |
| Difficult to obtain medications | ||
| Strongly disagree | 89 (19.3) | |
| Disagree | 135 (29.3) | |
| Neutral | 125 (27.1) | |
| Agree | 72 (15.6) | |
| Strongly agree | 40 (8.7) | |
| Procedures to arrange for medication delivery via postage are complicated | ||
| Strongly disagree | 66 (14.3) | |
| Disagree | 106 (23.0) | |
| Neutral | 166 (36.0) | |
| Agree | 73 (15.8) | |
| Strongly agree | 50 (10.8) | |
| Procedures to arrange for medication self-collection via “pick-and-go” or “drive-through” are complicated | ||
| Strongly disagree | 56 (12.1) | |
| Disagree | 96 (20.8) | |
| Neutral | 218 (47.3) | |
| Agree | 63 (13.7) | |
| Strongly agree | 28 (6.1) | |
| Medications ran out of stock | ||
| Strongly disagree | 112 (24.3) | |
| Disagree | 167 (36.2) | |
| Neutral | 126 (27.3) | |
| Agree | 39 (8.5) | |
| Strongly agree | 17 (3.7) | |
| Medications provided are always insufficient for the stated duration of supply | ||
| Strongly disagree | 116 (25.2) | |
| Disagree | 204 (44.3) | |
| Neutral | 88 (19.1) | |
| Agree | 38 (8.2) | |
| Strongly agree | 15 (3.3) | |
| I have skipped my medications to avoid running out of supply | ||
| Never | 345 (74.8) | |
| Rarely | 50 (10.8) | |
| Sometimes | 50 (10.8) | |
| Often | 10 (2.2) | |
| Always | 6 (1.3) | |
| I have adjusted the dose of my medications without consulting my doctor to avoid running out of supply during the COVID-19 outbreak | ||
| Never | 369 (80.0) | |
| Rarely | 39 (8.5) | |
| Sometimes | 32 (6.9) | |
| Often | 11 (2.4) | |
| Always | 10 (2.2) | |
| Psychological Impact | ||
| HADS-Anxiety | Normal | 334 (72.5) |
| Borderline | 80 (17.4) | |
| Abnormal | 47 (10.2) | |
| HADS-Depression | Normal | 374 (81.1) |
| Borderline | 55 (11.9) | |
| Abnormal | 32 (6.9) | |
*Seizure worsening is defined as an increased in seizure frequency, duration, or severity.
3.1. Clinical, logistic, and psychological impacts
There were 11.1% reported increased seizure frequency during COVID-19 period, 4.3% and 7.4% experienced longer seizure duration and severity, respectively. In total, 13.0% experienced seizure worsening, with either an increase in seizure frequency, duration, or severity. The main perceived reasons for seizure worsening included inadequate sleep (28.3%), stress (24.0%), and physical tiredness (19.5%). In reverse, 12.1–17.1% of our patients experienced less frequent, shorter, or less severe seizures during the pandemic (Table 1).
One hundred twenty (26.0%) participants found it difficult to re-schedule clinic appointments while 139 worried that their seizure will worsen (30.2%). More than half (61.6%) of the respondents have never had any prior online or tele-consultation access. One hundred thirty-three patients (28.9%) were afraid of going to the emergency unit and 18.7% found it difficult to go to emergency unit during the COVID-19 and MCO period. Fifty-three (11.5%) had self-adjusted AED dosages to avoid running out of supply. Some reported difficulty to obtain their AEDs (24.3%), 14.3% skipped their AED doses to conserve their remaining supply and 15.9% ran out of AEDs. A significant number experienced abnormal levels of anxiety (27.6%) as well as depression (18.8%) (Table 1).
3.2. Factors related to seizure worsening during COVID-19 period
Seizure worsening was more frequently reported in those with baseline seizures frequency ≥1 per month (32.0%) as compared to others with no seizure for at least a year (2.3%) and < 1 per month (10.2%, p < 0.001). Seizure worsening was also reported in patients who tried at least 3 AEDs (21.1% vs. 8.3% with 1 AED or 6.3% with 2 AEDs, p < 0.001), worries of seizure worsening (18.0% vs. 10.9% with no worries at all, p < 0.001), difficulty to go emergency unit (24.4% vs. 10.4% with no difficulty, p < 0.001), AEDs ran out of stock (23.2% vs. 11.6%, p < 0.05), self-adjustment of AED dosages (26.4% vs. 11.3%, p < 0.001), and inadequate sleep (22.4% vs. 9.2%, p < 0.001) and stress (23.4% vs.10.1%, p < 0.01). Less patients in our hospital (UMMC) reported seizure worsening as compared to other hospitals (11.4% vs. 29.3%, p < 0.01). Participants experiencing seizure worsening reported greater anxiety (8.10 ± 5.011 vs. 4.84 ± 3.989, p < 0.001) and depression (6.05 ± 3.868 vs. 3.86 ± 3.589, p < 0.001) (Table 2 ).
Table 2.
Factors associated with seizure worsening during COVID-19 period (n = 461).
| Factors | Seizure worsening during COVID-19 |
p-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes (n = 60), n (%) | No (n = 400), n (%) | |||
| Sociodemographic Characteristics | ||||
| Age (Years), Mean ± SD | 37.18 ± 15.79 | 39.51 ± 15.91 | NS | |
| Gender |
Male (n = 230) | 30 (13.0) | 200 (87.0) | NS |
| Female (n = 231) | 30 (13.0) | 201 (87.0) | ||
| Race | Malay (n = 139) | 21 (35.0) | 118 (29.3) | NS |
| Chinese (n = 208) | 25 (41.7) | 183 (45.8) | ||
| Indian (n = 103) | 11 (18.3) | 92 (23.0) | ||
| Native (n = 1) | 1 (1.7) | 1 (0.3) | ||
| Others (n = 7) | 2 (3.3) | 7 (1.8) | ||
| Marital Status | Single (n = 265) | 38 (14.3) | 227 (85.7) | NS |
| Others (n = 196) | 22 (11.2) | 174 (88.8) | ||
| Education | Secondary or below (n = 256) | 36 (14.1) | 220 (85.9) | NS |
| Tertiary (n = 205) | 24 (11.7) | 181 (88.3) | ||
| Employment | Employed (n = 183) | 20 (10.9) | 163 (89.1) | NS |
| Others (n = 278) | 25 (16.6) | 126 (83.4) | ||
| Clinical characteristics | ||||
| Age of onset (Years), Mean ± SD | 17.78 ± 14.00 | 21.34 ± 15.93 | NS | |
| Seizure frequency before COVID-19 | No seizure for at least a year (n = 173) | 4 (2.3) | 169 (97.7) | 0.000 |
| Less than once a month (n = 166) | 17 (10.2) | 149 (89.8) | ||
| One of more seizure a month (n = 122) | 39 (32.0) | 83 (68.0) | ||
| Seizure type | Focal (n = 249) | 39 (15.7) | 210 (84.3) | NS |
| Others (n = 212) | 21 (9.9) | 191 (90.1) | ||
| EEG | Abnormal (n = 310) | 46 (14.8) | 264 (85.2) | NS |
| Others (n = 151) | 14 (9.3) | 137 (90.7) | ||
| Imaging | Abnormal (n = 254) | 33 (13.0) | 221 (87.0) | NS |
| Others (n = 207 | 27 (13.0) | 180 (87.0) | ||
| No. of AEDs | 1 (n = 144) | 12 (8.3) | 132 (91.7) | 0.000 |
| 2 (n = 127) | 8 (6.3) | 119 (93.7) | ||
| 3 or more (n = 190) | 40 (21.1) | 150 (78.9) | ||
| Surgery | Yes (n = 57) | 6 (10.5) | 51 (89.5) | NS |
| Others (n = 404) | 54 (13.4) | 350 (86.6) | ||
| Hospital | UMMC (n = 420) | 48 (11.4) | 372 (88.6) | 0.003 |
| Others (n = 41) | 12 (29.3) | 29 (70.7) | ||
| Triggers | ||||
| Reason for seizure worsening | Stress (n = 107) | 25 (23.4) | 82 (76.6) | 0.001 |
| Inadequate sleep (n = 125) | 28 (22.4) | 97 (77.6) | 0.000 | |
| Missed AEDs (n = 62) | 5 (8.1) | 57 (91.9) | NS | |
| Inadequate AEDs (n = 10) | 3 (30.0) | 7 (70.0) | NS | |
| Fever (n = 24) | 2 (8.3) | 22 (91.7) | NS | |
| Physical tiredness (n = 86) | 16 (18.6) | 70 (81.4) | NS | |
| Diet (n = 23) | 4 (17.4) | 19 (82.6) | NS | |
| Clinic Appointment | ||||
| Difficulty to reschedule clinic appointments | Yes (n = 120) | 21 (17.5) | 99 (82.5) | NS |
| No (n = 182) | 19 (10.4) | 163 (89.6) | ||
| Worries seizures get worse because of postponed clinic appointments | Yes (n = 139) | 25 (18.0) | 114 (82.0) | 0.001 |
| No (n = 322) | 35 (10.9) | 287 (89.1) | ||
| Access to online or tele-consultation | Yes (n = 341) | 20 (16.7) | 100 (83.3) | NS |
| No (n = 120) | 40 (11.7) | 301 (88.3) | ||
| Emergency unit | ||||
| Afraid to go to emergency unit | Yes (n = 133) | 19 (14.3) | 114 (85.7) | NS |
| No (n = 211) | 22 (10.4) | 189 (89.6) | ||
| Difficulty to go to emergency unit | Yes (n = 86) | 21 (24.4) | 65 (75.6) | 0.000 |
| No (n = 375) | 39 (10.4) | 336 (89.6) | ||
| Understand need to go to emergency unit | Yes (n = 372) | 47 (12.6) | 325 (87.4) | NS |
| No (n = 89) | 13 (14.6) | 76 (85.4) | ||
| Knowledge on what to do during seizures | Yes (n = 363) | 47 (12.9) | 316 (87.1) | NS |
| No (n = 98) | 13 (13.3) | 85 (86.7) | ||
| Medication Supply | ||||
| Pay for your own AEDs | Yes, fully (n = 191) | 23 (12.0) | 168 (88.0) | NS |
| Yes, partially (n = 187) | 21 (11.2) | 166 (88.8) | ||
| No, fully subsidized (n = 83) | 16 (19.3) | 67 (80.7) | ||
| Difficult to get AEDs | Yes (n = 112) | 20 (17.9) | 92 (82.1) | NS |
| No (n = 224) | 24 (10.7) | 200 (89.3) | ||
| Difficult to arrange AED delivery | Yes (n = 123) | 21 (17.1) | 102 (82.9) | NS |
| No (n = 172) | 19 (11.0) | 153 (89.0) | ||
| Difficult to arrange self-pick-up | Yes (n = 91) | 18 (19.8) | 328 (88.6) | 0.016 |
| No (n = 370) | 42 (11.4) | 138 (91.4) | ||
| AEDs ran out of stock | Yes (n = 56) | 13 (23.2) | 43 (76.8) | 0.037 |
| Others (n = 405) | 47 (11.6) | 358 (88.4) | ||
| Insufficient AED supply | Yes (n = 53) | 8 (15.1) | 45 (84.9) | NS |
| No (n = 320) | 41 (12.8) | 279 (87.2) | ||
| Skipped AEDs | Yes (n = 66) | 12 (18.2) | 54 (81.8) | NS |
| Others (n = 395) | 48 (12.2) | 347 (87.8) | ||
| Self-adjusted AED dosage | Yes (n = 53) | 14 (26.4) | 39 (73.6) | 0.004 |
| Others (n = 408) | 46 (11.3) | 362 (88.7) | ||
| Psychological Scales | ||||
| Mean ± SD | ||||
| HADS | Anxiety score | 8.10 ± 5.011 | 4.84 ± 3.99 | 0.000 |
| Depression score | 6.05 ± 3.87 | 3.86 ± 3.59 | 0.000 | |
| QOLIE −31 | Overall Score | 48.01 ± 13.04 | 62.15 ± 15.22 | 0.000 |
|
29.72 ± 23.71 | 49.17 ± 27.45 | 0.000 | |
|
56.25 ± 16.26 | 69.72 ± 17.47 | 0.000 | |
|
56.07 ± 17.04 | 66.76 ± 17.38 | 0.000 | |
|
44.42 ± 14.99 | 59.36 ± 17.22 | 0.000 | |
|
47.71 ± 21.87 | 61.12 ± 22.74 | 0.000 | |
|
52.26 ± 11.78 | 54.35 ± 12.96 | NS | |
|
45.55 ± 20.19 | 62.68 ± 22.65 | 0.000 | |
NS, Not significant; *UMMC, University Malaya Medical Centre.
A binary logistic regression analysis was conducted to investigate the predictors of seizure worsening. Among the 12 variables that correlated significantly with seizure worsening, 4 variables (stress as a precipitating factor, medication ran out of stock, difficulty to arrange self-pick-up, worries seizures get worse because of postponed clinic appointments) were excluded because of strong correlation with other independent variables. The full model containing all predictors was statistically significant, χ2(8, N = 461) = 96.49, p < 0.001. The model correctly classified 89.1% of cases. The strongest predictor for seizure worsening during COVID-19 period was baseline seizures frequency > 1 per month (OR, 14.10), followed by anxiety (OR, 3.90), inadequate sleep (OR, 0.37) and treatment at UMMC (OR, 0.31) (see Table 3 ).
Table 3.
Logistic regression model for predictors of seizure worsening during COVID-19 period.
| B | S.E. | Wald | df | Sig. | Exp(B) | 95% CI |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||||||
| Seizure frequency before COVID-19: ≥1 seizure a month | 2.65 | 0.58 | 20.52 | 1 | 0.00 | 14.10 | 4.49 | 44.32 |
| HADS (Anxiety): abnormal | 1.36 | 0.41 | 11.23 | 1 | 0.00 | 3.90 | 1.76 | 8.64 |
| Difficulty to go to emergency unit | 0.57 | 0.38 | 2.26 | 1 | 0.13 | 1.77 | 0.84 | 3.74 |
| Self-adjusted AED dosage | 0.37 | 0.44 | 0.71 | 1 | 0.40 | 1.45 | 0.61 | 3.45 |
| No. of AEDs: 3 or more | 0.31 | 0.44 | 0.50 | 1 | 0.48 | 1.37 | 0.57 | 3.26 |
| HADS (Depression): abnormal | -0.23 | 0.44 | 0.28 | 1 | 0.60 | 0.79 | 0.34 | 1.87 |
| Reason for seizure worsening: Inadequate sleep | −1.00 | 0.35 | 8.16 | 1 | 0.004 | 0.37 | 0.19 | 0.73 |
| Hospital: UMMC | −1.16 | 0.47 | 6.10 | 1 | 0.014 | 0.31 | 0.13 | 0.79 |
*CI, Confidence interval; UMMC, University Malaya Medical Centre.
3.3. Quality of life in epilepsy
Poorer total QOLIE-31 score was noted in those with seizure worsening (48.01 ± 13.040 vs. 62.15 ± 15.222 in those with no change or improve in seizure control, p < 0.001), similarly in all subscales except medication effects (Table 2).
Stepwise linear regression was conducted to determine whether seizure control predicted QOLIE-31 score in step 1, which explained 9% of the variance, F(1, 453 s) = 46.8, p < 0.001. Subsequent psychological factors (HADS anxiety and depression scores) were entered at Step 2, which further explained an additional 42% of the variance in predicting QOLIE-31 during COVID-19 period. All measures were statistically significant, F(3, 451) = 158.4, p < 0.001), with depression recording the highest beta value (β = −0.372, p < 0.001) (Table 4 ).
Table 4.
Stepwise regression analyses in predicting QOLIE-31 (N = 461).
| B | SE B | Beta | p | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model A: Seizure control only (adjusted R2 = 0.094) | |||||
| Seizure Control | −14.233 | 2.082 | −0.306 | 0.000 | −18.324 to −10.143 |
| Model A: Seizure control and psychological factors (adjusted R2 = 0.509) | |||||
| Seizure Control | −6.661 | 1.583 | −0.143 | 0.000 | −9.772 to −3.549 |
| HADS Anxiety | −1.265 | 0.181 | −0.345 | 0.000 | −1.620 to −0.910 |
| HADS Depression | −1.577 | 0.206 | −0.372 | 0.000 | −1.982 to −1.172 |
3.4. Multinational comparison of clinical and psychological impacts
Seizure worsening was reported in 8.6–29.5% of the respondents in various countries, highest in Saudi Arabia, followed by Spain and USA, Italy, China, and Malaysia. The anxiety rate ranged from 9.4 to 60.5% (highest in Italy), and depression rate from 8.6 to 46.9% (highest in Brazil and Belgium); the rates in Malaysia were within the range. Higher anxiety and depression rates (>30%) were reported in countries with >30,000 COVID-19 cases per 1 million population, including Brazil, Belgium, Spain, and Italy (Table 5 ).
Table 5.
Multinational comparison of the clinical and psychological impacts of COVID-19 on people with epilepsy.
| Countries | Total COVID-19 cases [19] | Cases per 1 million people | Deaths | GDP per capita | Seizure worsening, % | Anxiety, % (scale) | Depression, % (scale) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 86,618 | 2,646 | 422 | 10,192 | 13.0 | 27.6 (HADS) | 18.8 (HADS) |
| Brazil, | 6,970,034 | 32,981 | 182,799 | 6,450 | - | 50.4 (HADS) | 39.8 (HADS) |
| Belgium [10] | 611,422 | 53,054 | 18,178 | 43,814 | 46.9 (PHQ-9) | ||
| Spain [11] | 1,762,212 | 37,414 | 48,401 | 26,832 | 27.0 | 42 | 35 |
| Spain [12] | 1,762,212 | 37,414 | 48,401 | 26,832 | 9.8 | 26.7 | 8.6 |
| Saudi Arabia [9] | 360,155 | 10,525 | 6,069 | 19,587 | 29.5 | – | – |
| Italy [13] | 1,870,576 | 31,050 | 65,857 | 30,657 | 18.0 | 60.5 (GAD-7) | 34.8 (BDI-II) |
| China [4] | 86,770 | 62 | 4,634 | 10,839 | 17.7 | 30.21 | – |
| Wuhan [5] | 86,770 | 62 | 4,634 | 10,839 | 8.6 | 9.4 (GAD-7) | 13.0 (PHWQ-9) |
| Chengdu [6] | 86,770 | 62 | 4,634 | 10,839 | 13.1 (K-6) 2 | ||
| USA [14] | 16,766,932 | 50,877 | 303,895 | 27 | - | - |
1 Aggravated psychological disorder; 2 Six‐item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale.
4. Discussion
In this Malaysian nationwide study, 13.0% of the participants reported worsening of their seizure control (13.0%), 27.6% experienced anxiety, and 18.8% depression. Seizure worsening was related to clinical (uncontrolled pre-COVID seizure control and number of AEDs), logistic (difficult access to emergency, postponed clinic appointment, inadequate AED supply and self-adjustment of AEDs), and psychological (inadequate sleep and anxiety) factors. This led to poorer quality of life among PWE.
In Malaysia, seizure worsening was reported in 13% of the respondents, compatible with China but lower than the European countries and Saudi Arabia [4], [6], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. As shown in Table 5, the rates were higher in countries with higher percentage of COVID-19 cases, similar to the rates of anxiety and depression. These differences might also be related to the cultural differences in these countries, which influence the national policy and individual reaction toward the pandemic, but also can be disease specific [20]. As a comparison, we found different patterns in cancer studies during the pandemic, in which the rates of depression and anxiety were lower in Malaysia but not in China, whereas for European countries the rates were high but not in USA [21], [22], [23], [24]. Stress or anxiety was commonly associated with seizure worsening [4], [5], [6], [9], [11], but not depression. In our study, though depression was associated with seizure worsening in univariate analysis, the association was not significant in multivariate analysis. This supports the need to screen for psychological distress routinely especially during COVID-19 pandemic.
Many studies reported logistic issues among PWE especially on the access and adjustment of AEDs [4], [5], [10], [11], and clinic postponement [13]. It was postulated that these logistic issues may be the cause of seizure worsening, but only AED issues (dose adjustment and supply) were reported as a factor for seizure control during COVID-19 period [5], [11]. In our study, seizure worsening was shown to be related to access of all related healthcare services including emergency, outpatient, and pharmacy services. Consequently, about 10% of the respondents adjusted their dose to avoid depletion of their AEDs and this was associated with seizure worsening, thus should be discouraged. In response to the logistic issues, immediate measures were established in our hospital (UMMC) to allow patient’s online access to the epilepsy team, pharmacy, and registration counter virtually. These measures may not be widely available in other hospitals during the early phase of the pandemic, which possibly explain more patients with seizure worsening in these hospitals.
During this pandemic, some patients (12–17%) experienced seizure improvement during the pandemic. This could be attributed to less provoking factors such as sleep deprivation and work stress in these patients, during the confinement period [11], [12], [13].
Quality of life in PWE was affected by seizure worsening during COVID-19 period, which was expected. However, the regression analysis in our study showed a higher impact of psychological stress, including both anxiety and depression, on the quality of life.
4.1. Implications
This study showed that the rights and needs of patients with chronic illness have not been silenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the need for the Health Authorities to re-organize the healthcare services to ensure continuity of care.
For some patients, delayed medical attention from the fear of contracting COVID-19 might have life-threatening consequences. Therefore, it is vital for us to understand and address their needs in a timely manner. A balance must be achieved between the required safety measures to prevent further spread of this virus and adequate care to patients with chronic illnesses [25]. As an alternative, telemedicine was frequently discussed and was shown to be practical and effective [26]. Epilepsy Electronic Patient Portal was also proposed to improve seizure care [27]. Another suggestion would be to allocate staggered clinic hours to prevent overcrowding while remaining available to those in need.
Further research is warranted to help design platform that caters to the diversified communities and countries, especially in the resource limited areas while reducing the negative impact of COVID-19. Algorithms should be designed to prevent sudden loss of access to healthcare in the event of a public health emergency.
4.2. Limitations
As the web-based study was conducted in urban and semi-rural areas, the findings may not be representative of the rural or underprivileged settings with no access to internet. Future studies involving these underprivileged communities should be conducted to assess their continuity of care in a resource-limited driven setting.
5. Conclusion
A significant number of PWE experienced seizure worsening during COVID-19 period, which was related to the clinical, logistic, and psychological factors. Quality of life was affected by seizure worsening and psychological stress. This study highlights the impact of the COVID-19 faced by people with epilepsy and the importance to understand their needs.
Author contributions
MY designed the project, wrote the protocol, obtained the data, performed the statistical analysis, interpreted the data, and drafted the manuscript. KS designed the study, reviewed the study protocol, supervised the execution, and coordinated the data analysis plan. SL reviewed the study protocol, supervised the execution, and interpreted the data. All authors reviewed, revised, and approved the manuscript.
Funding
This study was supported by University of Malaya Faculty of Medicine Postgraduate Scheme (FOMPSS) and Impact Oriented Interdisciplinary Research Grant (IIRG) Programme (IIRG003A-2020HWB).
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
We would like to acknowledge the University of Malaya Faculty of Medicine Postgraduate Scheme (FOMPSS) and Impact Oriented Interdisciplinary Research Grant (IIRG) Programme (IIRG003A-2020HWB).
References
- 1.Falco-Walter J.J., Scheffer I.E., Fisher R.S. The new definition and classification of seizures and epilepsy. Epilepsy Res. 2018;139:73–79. doi: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2017.11.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Chan K.W., Wong V.T., Tang S.C.W. COVID-19: An Update on the Epidemiological, Clinical, Preventive and Therapeutic Evidence and Guidelines of Integrative Chinese-Western Medicine for the Management of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Disease. Am J Chin Med. 2020;48:737–762. doi: 10.1142/S0192415X20500378. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Covid-19: Cases up by 1,114, bringing total to 46,209. The Star News, 2020. (Accessed 14 November, 2020, at https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2020/03/23/covid-19-current-situation-in-malaysia-updated-daily.).
- 4.Xiao Z., Ding D., Li S., Hong Z. Management of people with epilepsy during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national survey among epileptologists in China. Acta Epileptologica. 2020:2. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Huang S., Wu C., Jia Y., Li G., Zhu Z., Lu K., et al. COVID-19 outbreak: the impact of stress on seizures in patients with epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2020 doi: 10.1111/epi.16635. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Hao X., Zhou D., Li Z., Zeng G., Hao N., Li E., et al. Severe psychological distress among patients with epilepsy during the COVID-19 outbreak in southwest China. Epilepsia. 2020;61:1166–1173. doi: 10.1111/epi.16544. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Leung WCY, Lau EHY, Kwan P, Chang RS-k. Impact of COVID-19 on seizure-related emergency attendances and hospital admissions — a territory-wide observational study. Epilepsy Behav 2021;115:107497. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2020.107497. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 8.Saleem T., Sheikh N., Abbasi M.H., Javed I., Khawar M.B. COVID-19 containment and its unrestrained impact on epilepsy management in resource-limited areas of Pakistan. Epilepsy Behav. 2020;112 doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2020.107476. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Alkhotani A., Siddiqui M.I., Almuntashri F., Baothman R. The effect of COVID-19 pandemic on seizure control and self-reported stress on patient with epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. 2020;112 doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2020.107323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Van Hees S, Siewe Fodjo JN, Wijtvliet V, Van den Bergh R, Faria de Moura Villela E, da Silva CF, et al. Access to healthcare and prevalence of anxiety and depression in persons with epilepsy during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multicountry online survey. Epilepsy Behav 2020;112:107350. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 11.Sanchez-Larsen A., Gonzalez-Villar E., Diaz-Maroto I., Layos-Romero A., Martinez-Martin A., Alcahut-Rodriguez C., et al. Influence of the COVID-19 outbreak in people with epilepsy: analysis of a Spanish population (EPICOVID registry) Epilepsy Behav. 2020;112 doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2020.107396. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Fonseca E., Quintana M., Lallana S., Luis Restrepo J., Abraira L., Santamarina E., et al. Epilepsy in time of COVID-19: a survey-based study. Acta Neurol Scand. 2020;142:545–554. doi: 10.1111/ane.13335. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Assenza G., Lanzone J., Brigo F., Coppola A., Di Gennaro G., Di Lazzaro V., et al. Epilepsy care in the time of COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: risk factors for seizure worsening. Front Neurol. 2020;11:737. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2020.00737. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Miller W.R., Von Gaudecker J., Tanner A., Buelow J.M. Epilepsy self-management during a pandemic: Experiences of people with epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. 2020;111 doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2020.107238. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Bjelland I., Dahl A.A., Haug T.T., Neckelmann D. The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: an updated literature review. J Psychosom Res. 2002;52:69–77. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3999(01)00296-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Goldstein L.H., Holland L., Soteriou H., Mellers J.D. Illness representations, coping styles and mood in adults with epilepsy. Epilepsy Res. 2005;67:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2005.06.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.BG V, K P, RD H, BP H, JA C, KJ M. Quality of Life in Epilepsy QOLIE-31 (version 10): Scoring Manual and Patient Inventory. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 1993.
- 18.World Economic Outlook Database. (Accessed 16 December 2020, at https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2020/October.)
- 19.Google News: Coronavirus (COVID-19). (Accessed 16 December 2020, at https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-MY&mid=%2Fm%2F0154j&gl=MY&ceid=MY%3Aen.)
- 20.(WHO) WHO. Depression and other common mental disorders: Global Health Estimates Report: World Health Organization (WHO); 2017. Report No.: WHO REFERENCE NUMBER: WHO/MSD/MER/2017.2.
- 21.Wong LP, Lai LL, See MH, Alias H, Danaee M, Ting CY, et al. Psychological distress among cancer survivors during implementation of a nationwide Movement Control Order over the COVID-19 pandemic. Research Square 2020; doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-64258/v1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 22.Chen G., Wu Q., Jiang H., Zhang H., Peng J., Hu J., et al. Fear of disease progression and psychological stress in cancer patients under the outbreak of COVID-19. Psychooncology. 2020;29:1395–1398. doi: 10.1002/pon.5451. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Gultekin M., Ak S., Ayhan A., Strojna A., Pletnev A., Fagotti A., et al. Perspectives, fears and expectations of patients with gynaecological cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A Pan-European study of the European Network of Gynaecological Cancer Advocacy Groups (ENGAGe) Cancer Med. 2021;10:208–219. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3605. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Lou E., Teoh D., Brown K., Blaes A., Holtan S.G., Jewett P., et al. Perspectives of cancer patients and their health during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS ONE. 2020;15 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241741. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Granata T., Bisulli F., Arzimanoglou A., Rocamora R. Did the COVID-19 pandemic silence the needs of people with epilepsy? Epileptic Disorders. 2020;22:439–442. doi: 10.1684/epd.2020.1175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.von Wrede R., Moskau-Hartmann S., Baumgartner T., Helmstaedter C., Surges R. Counseling of people with epilepsy via telemedicine: experiences at a German tertiary epilepsy center during the COVID-19 pandemic. Epilepsy Behav. 2020;112 doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2020.107298. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Power K., McCrea Z., White M., Breen A., Dunleavy B., O'Donoghue S., et al. The Development of an Epilepsy Electronic Patient Portal: Facilitating both patient empowerment and remote clinician-patient interaction in a post COVID-19 world. Epilepsia. 2020 doi: 10.1111/epi.16627. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]