METHODS: Sixty healthy adult subjects aged 22-76-year-old (mean ± standard deviation=47.27 ± 18.29) participated in the head impulse paradigm and suppression head impulse paradigm using the video head impulse test. The Head impulse paradigm was used to assess all 6 semicircular canals, while suppression head impulse paradigm measured only the horizontal canals. Twenty subjects aged 22-40-year-old (25.25 ± 4.9) underwent a second session for the test-retest reliability.
RESULTS: There were good test-retest reliability for both measures (right horizontal head impulse paradigm, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.80; left horizontal head impulse paradigm, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.77; right anterior head impulse paradigm, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.86; left anterior head impulse paradigm, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.78; right posterior head impulse paradigm, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.78; left posterior head impulse paradigm, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.75; right horizontal suppression head impulse paradigm, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.76; left horizontal suppression head impulse paradigm, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.79). The test-retest reliability for suppression head impulse paradigmanti-compensatory saccade latency and amplitude were moderate (right latency, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.61; left latency, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.69; right amplitude, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.69; left amplitude, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.58). There were no significant effects of age on head impulse paradigm and suppression head impulse paradigm vestibulo-ocular reflex gain values and suppression head impulse paradigmsaccade latency. However, the saccade amplitude became smaller with increasing age, P < .001. The horizontal suppression head impulse paradigm vestibuloocular reflex gain values were significantly lower than the head impulse paradigm for both sides (right, P = .004; left, P = .004).
CONCLUSION: There was good test-retest reliability for both measures, and the gain values stabilized with age. However, suppression head impulse paradigm anti-compensatory saccade latency and amplitude had lower test-retest reliability than the gain. The suppression head impulse paradigm vestibulo-ocular reflex gain was lower than the head impulse paradigm and its anti-compensatory saccade amplitude reduced with increasing age.
METHODS: A population-based door-to-door survey was carried out throughout the country, using questionnaire for brief screening in ascertainment of epilepsy, using a questionnaire and its validated multilingual versions. Respondents who were screened positive underwent second-stage diagnostic phone interview by neurologists/ research assistants.
RESULTS: A total 16, 686 respondents participated in the survey and 646 (3.8 %) respondents were screened positive during the first stage interview. A total of 185 consented for second stage diagnostic interview and 118 (63.8 %) respondents were contacted successfully for the second stage diagnostic phone interview, of which 17 (14.4 %) respondents were diagnosed to have epilepsy. An additional 68 (57.6 %) respondents had febrile seizures only. After applying a weighting factor to each respondent to adjust for non-response and for the varying probabilities of selection, the adjusted lifetime epilepsy prevalence was 7.8 in 1000 population, and the adjusted prevalence for active epilepsy was 4.2 in 1000 population in Malaysia.
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of lifetime epilepsy in Malaysia is 7.8 per 1000 persons.
METHODS: A web-based survey was sent to clinicians involved in the management of SE, across all states and at all levels of healthcare services.
RESULTS: A total of 158 responses were received from 104 health facilities, including 23 tertiary government hospitals (95.8% of all government tertiary hospitals in Malaysia), 4 (80.0%) universities, 14 (6.7%) private, 15 (11.5%) district hospitals and 21 clinics. Intravenous (IV) diazepam was available in 14 (93.3%) district and 33 (80.5%) tertiary hospitals for prehospital management. Non-IV benzodiazepine (rectal diazepam and intramuscular midazolam) was not widely available in prehospital services (75.8% and 51.5%). Intramuscular midazolam was underutilised (60.0% in district and 65.9% in tertiary hospitals). IV sodium valproate and levetiracetam were only available in 66.7% and 53.3% of the district hospitals, respectively. Electroencephalogram (EEG) services were available in only 26.7% of the district hospitals. Non-pharmacological therapies such as ketogenic diet, electroconvulsive therapy, and therapeutic hypothermia were not available in most district and tertiary hospitals for refractory and super-refractory SE.
CONCLUSIONS: We identified several gaps in the current practice of SE management, including limited availability and underutilization of non-IV midazolam in prehospital services, underutilization of non-IV midazolam and other second-line ASMs, and lack of EEG monitoring in district hospitals and limited treatment options for refractory and super-refractory SE in tertiary hospitals.