Caroline K. Mbuba

Background: There are few studies on the epidemiology of epilepsy in large populations in Low and Middle Income Countries (LMIC). Most studies in these regions use two-stage population-based screening surveys, which are time-consuming and costly to implement in large populations required to generate accurate estimates. We examined the sensitivity and specificity of a three-stage cross-sectional screening methodology in detecting active convulsive epilepsy (ACE), which can be embedded within on-going census of demographic surveillance systems. We validated a three-stage cross-sectional screening methodology on a randomly selected sample of participants of a three-stage prevalence survey of epilepsy. Diagnosis of ACE by an experienced clinician was used as ‘gold standard’. We further compared the expenditure of this method with the standard two-stage methodology. Results: We screened 4442 subjects in the validation and identified 35 cases of ACE. Of these, 18 were identified as false negatives, most of whom (15/18) were missed in the first stage and a few (3/18) in the second stage of the three-stage screening. Overall, this methodology had a sensitivity of 48.6% and a specificity of 100%. It was 37% cheaper than a two-stage survey. Conclusion: This was the first study to evaluate the performance of a multi-stage screening methodology used to detect epilepsy in demographic surveillance sites. This method had poor sensitivity attributed mainly to stigma-related non-response in the first stage. This method needs to take into consideration the poor sensitivity and the savings in expenditure and time as well as validation in target populations. Our findings suggest the need for continued efforts to develop and improve case-ascertainment methods in population-based epidemiological studies of epilepsy in LMIC.

Summary: In many developing countries, people with epilepsy do not receive appropriate treatment for their condition, a phenomenon called the treatment gap (TG). We carried out a systematic review to investigate the magnitude, causes, and intervention strategies to improve outcomes in developing countries. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases, supplemented by a hand search of references in the key papers. The degree of heterogeneity and a pooled TG estimate were determined using metaanalysis techniques. The estimates were further stratified by continent and location of study (urban, rural). Twenty‐seven studies met the inclusion criteria: twelve from Africa, nine from Asia and six from Latin America. We observed a high degree of heterogeneity and inconsistency between studies. The overall estimate of the TG was 56/100 [95% confidence interval (CI) 31.1–100.0]. The variation in estimates could possibly be explained by nonuniform TG estimation methods and the diverse study populations, among other factors. The TG was mainly attributed to inadequate skilled manpower, cost of treatment, cultural beliefs, and unavailability of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). These factors have been addressed using different intervention strategies, such as education and supply of AEDs. Future research should estimate the TG coherently and develop sustainable interventions that will address the causes.