Epilepsy and Its Treatment

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The Choice of Treatment Solutions and the Methods Comparison
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

Known since the Middle Ages as the “falling sickness”, epilepsy has become one of the notorious diseases that are undeniably hard to get rid of.

Even in the present-day world, withal the scientific and technological advances that predetermined a breakthrough in medicine and, as a result, ended in discovering a number of avenues for treating the diseases that were previously considered incurable, epilepsy remains incurable.

However, numerous ways to make the disease less acute, as well as slow down its progress, seem to have proven efficient.

Although among the existing ways of treating epilepsy, including the pharmaceutical, therapeutic and alternative ones, the former seems the most trustworthy, the choice of the treatment method is largely predetermined by the specifics of the patient’s organism, as well as the progress of the disease, the way in which the symptoms manifest themselves, etc.

The Choice of Treatment Solutions and the Methods Comparison

As it has been mentioned above, the choice of epilepsy treatment methods has grown considerably over the past few years, which, however, does not mean that the specifics of the disease, as well as the clinical history, can be ignored in the choice of a treatment method.

At present, there are three basic options, i.e., cognitive, pharmaceutical and alternative ones. Evaluating each of the above-mentioned according to the existing measures of effectiveness is the first step on assessing their efficacy.

The Measures of Effectiveness: The Most Efficient Method

There are countless ways of checking the efficiency of the existing methods of epilepsy treatment.

The basic ones, however, seem to rely on five key elements, which are the validity of the method, its efficacy, the measurement of symptoms and the changes in the behavioral pattern, and the possibility of developing the same symptoms once again, i.e., the threat of recidivism.

That being said, the chosen methods of treatment, i.e., the use of Dilantin as the key pharmaceutical method, the educational approach as a specific kind of a cognitive method and the Vagus nerve stimulation as the key alternative treatment (McElroy-Cox, 2009), need to be evaluated according to their efficacy.

Validity

Unlike the other two methods of epilepsy treatment, the pharmaceutical one that involves the use of Dilantin seems to be valid enough in terms of its effect on the patient and the way in which it affects the disease.

As the executives at Pfizer say, Dilantin is “a valid substitute for therapeutic equivalence” (Pfizer makes a statement regarding Dilantin, 2008, 429), which means that the use of Dilantin is rather valid.

The educational approach can be considered a means to spread awareness of the specifics of the disease, so that it could be spotted and handled with at the earliest stages, which is valid enough.

Finally, the Vagus nerve stimulation is validated by a series of experiments conducted to prove the efficacy of the electric stimulation of the patient’s body (DeGrigorio, Shewmon, Murray & Whitehurst, 2006, 1214).

Efficacy

As it has already been mentioned, epilepsy is the kind of disease that does not vanish completely even after the most intense therapy, which is why the evaluation of efficacy of each type of treatthe ment specified above is going to be rather loose.

It is important to remember that each epilepsy case is individual and that one should make a decision concerning the treatment type only after considering all the factors concerning the disease and the patient.

However, according to the existing evidence, epilepsy seizures become considerably less frequent after the Dilantin medicine has been used.

The given choice seems rather justified, since the efficiency of the alternative treatment has not been proven efficient enough yet, and the educational one teaches rather what to do in case someone displays the signs of an epileptic seizure than how to treat epilepsy successfully.

Symptom Measurement

Another important aspect with the help of which the three specified methods can be compared to each other is the symptoms measurement that the give methods provide.

There is no secret that the evaluation of the symptoms severity, frequency and scale is crucial to defining the current stage of the disease progress, which, in its turn, predetermines the treatment schedule and intensity.

That being said, it is necessary to stress that the smaller the units of measurement are, the more precise the results will be.

As the definitions of the treatment strategies in question say, the key means of measuring he symptoms of epilepsy in each of the specified methods of treatment boil down to analyzing questionnaires and relying on the information derived from the conversations with patients.

Therefore, the three treatment methods come even in the given test.

Behavior Measurement

The behavior measurement, on the other hand, is something that cannot be checked with the help of a questionnaire, since it is highly unlikely that a patient is capable of providing an adequate objective evaluation of his/her behavior, especially the behavioral patterns that the patient follows in the course of a seizure.

Therefore, behavior measurement demands a more elaborate scale.

When dealing with the behavior measurement in epilepsy, however, it is worth keeping in mind that the notion of behavioral pattern transcends the differences in treatment approaches, which means that each of the specified types of treatment adopt the same approach to evaluating changes in the patient’s behavior.

For children, it is a common practice to use the Pier Harris Self-Concept Scale (McNeils, Johnson, Huberty & Austin, 2005), whereas adults’ behavior is evaluated with the help of continuous observational recording (Sutula, Sackellares, Miller & Dreifuss, 1981).

Recidivism

When evaluating the most efficient methods of treating epilepsy, it is necessary to check whether each of them guarantees that no instances of recidivism are going to occur; or, to be more exact, that the recidivism cases should happen as less frequently as possible, given the fact that epilepsy cannot be cured completely.

At this point, however, one must mention such parameter as predictability. With the pharmaceutical approach, it is more or less clear when the next fit is going to strike.

With the alternative treatment and the cognitive ones, on the other hand, one can never know when exactly the next epilepsy fit is going to happen. Therefore, the pharmaceutical approach seems superior in this case.

Regarding the Nature of the Treatments

Not only the properties of a specific method of treatment, but also its nature should be considered when evaluating its efficiency. Therefore, the three methods of treatment must be compared with a barometer of their origin.

The Cognitive Nature of the Educational Approach

Clearly being the descendant of the rapidly developing theory of knowledge (ToK), educational approach stems from the willingness to learn more about the problem. Although the causes are good enough, it is still clear that educational approach does not stem from the desire to cure people.

Hence, cognitive approach seems good only for raising awareness of epilepsy and how to treat epileptics.

The Pharmaceutical Nature of the Pharmaceutical Approach

Compared to the educational approach towards epilepsy, the use of Dilantin has a clearly pharmaceutical nature.

Although the use of Dilantin is not backed up by as profound theory as the educational one, it still has a number of advantages, one of which is the fact that Dilantin application has to do with a number of scientific and social science disciplines.

The nature of the given approach stems from the principles of people’s organism reacting towards specific chemical compounds, which means that key chemical and biological laws make the basis for the Dilantin creation.

Therefore, Dilantin seems to be the most reliable method of epilepsy treatment.

The Specifics of the Alternative Approach

Even though Dilantin has already been proven the most efficient medicine against epilepsy, the alternative approach should be given credit to as well. Relatively new, it can be considered an adjunctive therapy (Rogawski & Holmes, 2009).

The Rates of Symptoms Reduction With Each Method Applied

According to the existing statistics, the use of Dilantin proves efficient in most cases of epilepsy. While Vagus nerve stimulation helped less than 25% of patients, Dilantin helped more than 50% deal with seizures (Bromfield, Cavazos, & Sirven, 2006).

Educational approach, however, proves efficient in less than 5% of the cases, mostly because even knowing much about the disease, common people cannot provide the kind of help that doctors can.

Contemporary Attitudes Towards the Chosen Treatment Methods

The attitudes toward the specified methods are rather predictable and depend on how long the specified methods have been around, how many times they have been used and how successful they have proven to be.

Hence, it is quite understandable that the traditional pharmaceutical approach has gained the most support among doctors as the most trusted method. Specialists explain their choice as a result of comparing both the short- and long-term effects of the specified therapies (Fountain & Cole, 2010).

Conclusion

Judging by the data offered above, epilepsy remains a disease that cannot be treated fully; instead, it can be controlled with the help of various methods, starting from the ones that involve the use of various medications up to the methods that are aimed at changing the functions of the patient’s brain.

Although epilepsy cannot be cured completely, the pharmaceutical method proves to be the most efficient, according to the results of the study. It is worth mentioning, though, that each instance of epilepsy requires an individual approach.

Reference List

Bromfield, E. B., Cavazos, J. E., & Sirven, J. I. (2006). An introduction to epilepsy. West Hartford, CT: American Epilepsy Society.

DeGrigorio, C., Shewmon, A., Murray, D., & Whitehurst, T. (2006). Pilot study of trigeminal nerve stimulation (TNS) for epilepsy: A proof-of-concept trial. Epilepsia, 47(7), 1213–1215.

Fountain, N. B. & Cole, A. G. (2010). Pharmacologic treatment of epilepsy. NS Spectrums, 15(3), 4.

McElroy-Cox, C. (2009). Alternative approaches to epilepsy treatment. Current Neurology and Neuroscience reports, 9(4), 313–318.

McNeils, A. M., Johnson, C. S., Huberty, T. J., & Austin, J. K. (2005). Factors associated with academic achievement in children with recent-onset seizures. Seizure, 14(5), 331–339.

Pfizer makes a statement regarding Dilantin (2008). Web.

Rogawski, M. A. & Holmes, G. I. (2009). Nontraditonal epilepsy treatment approaches. Neurotherapeutics, 6(2), 213–217.

Sutula, T. P., Sackellares, J. C., Miller, J. Q., & Dreifuss, F. E. (1981). Intense monitoring inrefractory epilepsy. Neurology, 31(3), 243.

Click Here To Order Now!