Vignatelli, Luca

ABSTRACT Background The second consensus criteria for the diagnosis of multiple system atrophy (MSA) are widely recognized as the reference standard for clinical research, but lack sensitivity to diagnose the disease at early stages. Objective To develop novel Movement Disorder Society (MDS) criteria for MSA diagnosis using an evidence‐based and consensus‐based methodology. Methods We identified shortcomings of the second consensus criteria for MSA diagnosis and conducted a systematic literature review to answer predefined questions on clinical presentation and diagnostic tools relevant for MSA diagnosis. The criteria were developed and later optimized using two Delphi rounds within the MSA Criteria Revision Task Force, a survey for MDS membership, and a virtual Consensus Conference. Results The criteria for neuropathologically established MSA remain unchanged. For a clinical MSA diagnosis a new category of clinically established MSA is introduced, aiming for maximum specificity with acceptable sensitivity. A category of clinically probable MSA is defined to enhance sensitivity while maintaining specificity. A research category of possible prodromal MSA is designed to capture patients in the earliest stages when symptoms and signs are present, but do not meet the threshold for clinically established or clinically probable MSA. Brain magnetic resonance imaging markers suggestive of MSA are required for the diagnosis of clinically established MSA. The number of research biomarkers that support all clinical diagnostic categories will likely grow. Conclusions This set of MDS MSA diagnostic criteria aims at improving the diagnostic accuracy, particularly in early disease stages. It requires validation in a prospective clinical and a clinicopathological study. © 2022 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

ABSTRACTThe concept of epilepsy syndromes, introduced in 1989, was defined as “clusters of signs and symptoms customarily occurring together”. Definition of epilepsy syndromes based on electro‐clinical features facilitated clinical practice and, whenever possible, clinical research in homogeneous groups of patients with epilepsies. Progress in the fields of neuroimaging and genetics made it rapidly clear that, although crucial, the electro‐clinical description of epilepsy syndromes was not sufficient to allow much needed development of targeted therapies and a better understanding of the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of seizures. The 2017 ILAE position paper on Classification of the Epilepsies recognized that “as a critical tool for the practicing clinician, epilepsy classification must be relevant and dynamic to changes in thinking”. The concept of “epilepsy syndromes” evolved, incorporating issues related to aetiologies and comorbidities. A comprehensive update (and revision where necessary) of the EEG diagnostic criteria in the light of the 2017 revised terminology and concepts was deemed necessary. Part 2 covers the neonatal and paediatric syndromes in accordance with the age of onset. [Published with educational EEG plates atwww.epilepticdisorders.com].

AbstractRational. The concept of epilepsy syndromes, introduced in 1989, was defined as “clusters of signs and symptoms customarily occurring together”. Definition of epilepsy syndromes based on electro‐clinical features facilitated clinical practice and, whenever possible, clinical research in homogeneous groups of patients with epilepsies. Progress in the fields of neuroimaging and genetics made it rapidly clear that, although crucial, the electro‐clinical description of epilepsy syndromes was not sufficient to allow much needed development of targeted therapies and a better understanding of the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of seizures. The 2017 ILAE position paper on Classification of the Epilepsies recognized that “as a critical tool for the practicing clinician, epilepsy classification must be relevant and dynamic to changes in thinking”. The concept of “epilepsy syndromes” evolved, incorporating issues related to aetiologies and comorbidities. A comprehensive update (and revision where necessary) of the EEG diagnostic criteria in the light of the 2017 revised terminology and concepts was deemed necessary.Methods. The work was commissioned by the Neurophysiology Task Force of the ILAE Committee on the Diagnostic Methods. Diagnostic criteria and recording procedures were developed by group consensus, reached through an “informal”, internal decision‐making process. Each working group member was allocated a number of syndromes, and a standard structured template was used. International literature was extensively reviewed.Results. We developed a simple diagnostic system that is applicable to all epilepsy syndromes which allows the physician (i) to rate the strength of EEG diagnosis (degree of diagnostic certainty) by weighting EEG findings in relation to the available clinical information or the specific clinical question, and ii) to suggest further EEG diagnostics where conclusive diagnostic evidence is lacking. We also propose a system of syndrome‐specific recording protocols that, used with the relevant clinical presentation or specific clinical question, may maximize activation of epileptic discharges and ultimately help with standardization of EEG recording across departments, worldwide. Because recording methodology also depends on available resources, a two‐tier system was developed to embrace clinical EEG services in resource‐limited and industrialized countries. A clinical practice statement for each of the epilepsy syndromes discussed underscores the crucial role of the clinical information with regards to both the optimization of the EEG recording and mainly its meaningful interpretation. Part I covers Genetic (Idiopathic) generalized epilepsies and syndromes, Reflex epilepsies, structural and genetic focal (lobar) syndromes and Progressive Myoclonus Epilepsies [Published with educational EEG plates on www.epilepticdisorders.com].