INS NYC 2024 Program

Poster

Poster Session 09 Program Schedule

02/16/2024
03:30 pm - 04:45 pm
Room: Shubert Complex (Posters 1-60)

Poster Session 09: Epilepsy | Oncology | MS | Infectious Disease


Final Abstract #19

An Exploratory Analysis of Personality Assessment Inventory Score Profiles in Individuals with Comorbid Epileptic and Psychogenic Nonepileptic Seizures

Chelsea Bosch, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, United States
Lisa Koehl, Montana Neuropsychological Associates, Missoula, United States
Frederick Schmitt, University of Kentucky, Lexington, United States
Dona Locke, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, United States

Category: Epilepsy/Seizures

Keyword 1: nonepileptic seizures
Keyword 2: epilepsy / seizure disorders
Keyword 3: assessment

Objective:

Despite the relatively high base rate of comorbid psychogenic nonepileptic seizures and epileptic seizures (PNES+ES), little research exists on how the results of psychological assessments with this group compare to individuals with PNES only or ES only. The purpose of this exploratory analysis was to compare demographic and clinical variables as well as Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) profiles among PNES+ES, PNES only, and ES only groups.

Participants and Methods:

Data from 805 patients (PNES+ES n = 32, PNES n = 328, ES n = 445) who underwent long-term video EEG (vEEG) monitoring and completed a PAI were examined. Invalid PAI profiles were removed, and heterogeneity of variances was assessed for each variable of interest. Exploratory ANOVA and post-hoc analyses were conducted to compare select demographic and clinical variables as well as PAI scale and subscale scores among the three groups.

Results:

Those with PNES+ES had a younger age of onset (M = 20.6) and were prescribed more anti-seizure medications (M = 2.1) than those with PNES (M = 36.4 and M = 0.8, respectively). The PNES+ES group had significantly more females (82.1%), were more likely to use psychiatric medication, were more likely to have a history of any abuse, and were more likely to have a history of sexual abuse than the ES group (52.7% female). PAI profile scores were not significantly different between PNES+ES patients and those with PNES only. PNES+ES patients had significantly higher scores on SOM and SOM-C than ES patients, with SOM-S also nearing statistical significance.

Conclusions:

Exploratory analyses with comorbid PNES+ES patients did not suggest a demographic or clinical profile that clearly aligned with PNES only or ES only patients; instead, individuals with comorbid PNES+ES are likely to exhibit characteristics typical of both groups. The PAI profile generated by PNES+ES exhibited significant differences from ES only patients on SOM and SOM-C, with performance on SOM-S nearing significance, indicating these scales appear to be an appropriate focus for differentiation of PNES+ES patients from ES patients. The PAI profile of PNES+ES patients was not statistically different from that of PNES only patients, suggesting additional research is needed to better differentiate these groups.