Wirrell, Elaine C

AbstractEpilepsy syndromes have been recognized for >50 years, as distinct electroclinical phenotypes with therapeutic and prognostic implications. Nonetheless, no formally accepted International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) classification of epilepsy syndromes has existed. The ILAE Task Force on Nosology and Definitions was established to reach consensus regarding which entities fulfilled criteria for an epilepsy syndrome and to provide definitions for each syndrome. We defined an epilepsy syndrome as “a characteristic cluster of clinical and electroencephalographic features, often supported by specific etiological findings (structural, genetic, metabolic, immune, and infectious).” The diagnosis of a syndrome in an individual with epilepsy frequently carries prognostic and treatment implications. Syndromes often have age‐dependent presentations and a range of specific comorbidities. This paper describes the guiding principles and process for syndrome identification in both children and adults, and the template of clinical data included for each syndrome. We divided syndromes into typical age at onset, and further characterized them based on seizure and epilepsy types and association with developmental and/or epileptic encephalopathy or progressive neurological deterioration. Definitions for each specific syndrome are contained within the corresponding position papers.

AbstractThe goal of this paper is to provide updated diagnostic criteria for the epilepsy syndromes that have a variable age of onset, based on expert consensus of the International League Against Epilepsy Nosology and Definitions Taskforce (2017–2021). We use language consistent with current accepted epilepsy and seizure classifications and incorporate knowledge from advances in genetics, electroencephalography, and imaging. Our aim in delineating the epilepsy syndromes that present at a variable age is to aid diagnosis and to guide investigations for etiology and treatments for these patients.

Abstract The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Task Force on Nosology and Definitions proposes a classification and definition of epilepsy syndromes in the neonate and infant with seizure onset up to 2 years of age. The incidence of epilepsy is high in this age group and epilepsy is frequently associated with significant comorbidities and mortality. The licensing of syndrome specific antiseizure medications following randomized controlled trials and the development of precision, gene‐related therapies are two of the drivers defining the electroclinical phenotypes of syndromes with onset in infancy. The principal aim of this proposal, consistent with the 2017 ILAE Classification of the Epilepsies, is to support epilepsy diagnosis and emphasize the importance of classifying epilepsy in an individual both by syndrome and etiology. For each syndrome, we report epidemiology, clinical course, seizure types, electroencephalography (EEG), neuroimaging, genetics, and differential diagnosis. Syndromes are separated into self‐limited syndromes, where there is likely to be spontaneous remission and developmental and epileptic encephalopathies , diseases where there is developmental impairment related to both the underlying etiology independent of epileptiform activity and the epileptic encephalopathy. The emerging class of etiology‐specific epilepsy syndromes, where there is a specific etiology for the epilepsy that is associated with a clearly defined, relatively uniform, and distinct clinical phenotype in most affected individuals as well as consistent EEG, neuroimaging, and/or genetic correlates, is presented. The number of etiology‐defined syndromes will continue to increase, and these newly described syndromes will in time be incorporated into this classification. The tables summarize mandatory features, cautionary alerts, and exclusionary features for the common syndromes. Guidance is given on the criteria for syndrome diagnosis in resource‐limited regions where laboratory confirmation, including EEG, MRI, and genetic testing, might not be available.

Abstract In 2017, the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Classification of Epilepsies described the “genetic generalized epilepsies” (GGEs), which contained the “idiopathic generalized epilepsies” (IGEs). The goal of this paper is to delineate the four syndromes comprising the IGEs, namely childhood absence epilepsy, juvenile absence epilepsy, juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, and epilepsy with generalized tonic–clonic seizures alone. We provide updated diagnostic criteria for these IGE syndromes determined by the expert consensus opinion of the ILAE’s Task Force on Nosology and Definitions (2017–2021) and international external experts outside our Task Force. We incorporate current knowledge from recent advances in genetic, imaging, and electroencephalographic studies, together with current terminology and classification of seizures and epilepsies. Patients that do not fulfill criteria for one of these syndromes, but that have one, or a combination, of the following generalized seizure types: absence, myoclonic, tonic‐clonic and myoclonic‐tonic‐clonic seizures, with 2.5–5.5 Hz generalized spike‐wave should be classified as having GGE. Recognizing these four IGE syndromes as a special grouping among the GGEs is helpful, as they carry prognostic and therapeutic implications.

Abstract The 2017 International League Against Epilepsy classification has defined a three‐tier system with epilepsy syndrome identification at the third level. Although a syndrome cannot be determined in all children with epilepsy, identification of a specific syndrome provides guidance on management and prognosis. In this paper, we describe the childhood onset epilepsy syndromes, most of which have both mandatory seizure type(s) and interictal electroencephalographic (EEG) features. Based on the 2017 Classification of Seizures and Epilepsies, some syndrome names have been updated using terms directly describing the seizure semiology. Epilepsy syndromes beginning in childhood have been divided into three categories: (1) self‐limited focal epilepsies, comprising four syndromes: self‐limited epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes, self‐limited epilepsy with autonomic seizures, childhood occipital visual epilepsy, and photosensitive occipital lobe epilepsy; (2) generalized epilepsies, comprising three syndromes: childhood absence epilepsy, epilepsy with myoclonic absence, and epilepsy with eyelid myoclonia; and (3) developmental and/or epileptic encephalopathies, comprising five syndromes: epilepsy with myoclonic–atonic seizures, Lennox–Gastaut syndrome, developmental and/or epileptic encephalopathy with spike‐and‐wave activation in sleep, hemiconvulsion–hemiplegia–epilepsy syndrome, and febrile infection‐related epilepsy syndrome. We define each, highlighting the mandatory seizure(s), EEG features, phenotypic variations, and findings from key investigations.

Abstract Objective This study was undertaken to gain consensus from experienced physicians and caregivers regarding optimal diagnosis and management of Dravet syndrome (DS), in the context of recently approved, DS‐specific therapies and emerging disease‐modifying treatments. Methods A core working group was convened consisting of six physicians with recognized expertise in DS and two representatives of the Dravet Syndrome Foundation. This core group summarized the current literature (focused on clinical presentation, comorbidities, maintenance and rescue therapies, and evolving disease‐modifying therapies) and nominated the 31‐member expert panel (ensuring international representation), which participated in two rounds of a Delphi process to gain consensus on diagnosis and management of DS. Results There was strong consensus that infants 2–15 months old, presenting with either a first prolonged hemiclonic seizure or first convulsive status epilepticus with fever or following vaccination, in the absence of another cause, should undergo genetic testing for DS. Panelists agreed on evolution of specific comorbidities with time, but less agreement was achieved on optimal management. There was also agreement on appropriate first‐ to third‐line maintenance therapies, which included the newly approved agents. Whereas there was agreement for recommendation of disease‐modifying therapies, if they are proven safe and efficacious for seizures and/or reduction of comorbidities, there was less consensus for when these should be started, with caregivers being more conservative than physicians. Significance This International DS Consensus, informed by both experienced global caregiver and physician voices, provides a strong overview of the impact of DS, therapeutic goals and optimal management strategies incorporating the recent therapeutic advances in DS, and evolving disease‐modifying therapies.

AbstractThis study assessed the effectiveness of genetic testing in shortening the time to diagnosis of late infantile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis type 2 (CLN2) disease. Individuals who received epilepsy gene panel testing through Behind the Seizure®, a sponsored genetic testing program (Cohort A), were compared to children outside of the sponsored testing program during the same period (Cohort B). Two cohorts were analyzed: children aged ≥24 to ≤60 months with unprovoked seizure onset at ≥24 months between December 2016 and January 2020 (Cohort 1) and children aged 0 to ≤60 months at time of testing with unprovoked seizure onset at any age between February 2019 and January 2020 (Cohort 2). The diagnostic yield in Cohort 1A (n = 1814) was 8.4% (n = 153). The TPP1 diagnostic yield within Cohort 1A was 2.9‐fold higher compared to Cohort 1B (1.0%, n = 18/1814 vs. .35%, n = 8/2303; p = .0157). The average time from first symptom to CLN2 disease diagnosis was significantly shorter than previously reported (9.8 vs. 22.7 months, p < .001). These findings indicate that facilitated access to early epilepsy gene panel testing helps to increase diagnostic yield for CLN2 disease and shortens the time to diagnosis, enabling earlier intervention.

AbstractObjectiveVaccination against the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus is a primary tool to combat the COVID‐19 pandemic. However, vaccination is a common seizure trigger in individuals with Dravet syndrome (DS). Information surrounding COVID‐19 vaccine side effects in patients with DS would aid caregivers and providers in decisions for and management of COVID‐19 vaccination.MethodsA survey was emailed to the Dravet Syndrome Foundation's Family Network and posted to the Dravet Parent & Caregiver Support Group on Facebook between May and August 2021. Deidentified information obtained included demographics and vaccination status for individuals with DS. Vaccine type, side effects, preventative measures, and changes in seizure activity following COVID‐19 vaccination were recorded. For unvaccinated individuals, caregivers were asked about intent to vaccinate and reasons for their decision.ResultsOf 278 survey responses, 120 represented vaccinated individuals with DS (median age = 19.5 years), with 50% reporting no side effects from COVID‐19 vaccination. Increased seizures following COVID‐19 vaccination were reported in 16 individuals, but none had status epilepticus. Of the 158 individuals who had not received a COVID‐19 vaccination, 37 were older than 12 years (i.e., eligible at time of study), and only six of these caregivers indicated intent to seek vaccination. The remaining 121 responses were caregivers to children younger than 12 years, 60 of whom indicated they would not seek COVID‐19 vaccination when their child with DS became eligible. Reasons for vaccine hesitancy were fear of increased seizure activity and concerns about vaccine safety.SignificanceThese results indicate COVID‐19 vaccination is well tolerated by individuals with DS. One main reason for vaccine hesitancy was fear of increased seizure activity, which occurred in only 13% of vaccinated individuals, and none had status epilepticus. This study provides critical and reassuring insights for caregivers and health care providers making decisions about the safety of COVID‐19 vaccinations for individuals with DS.

AbstractObjectiveInfants with focal‐onset epilepsy are an understudied population, requiring additional evaluation for clinical assessment and prognostication. Our goal was to characterize the etiology and natural history of infantile‐onset focal epilepsy.MethodsWe retrospectively identified all infants (0–24 months) with onset of focal epilepsy while resident in Olmsted County, Minnesota, between 1980 and 2018, using the Rochester Epidemiology Project Database. We assessed the impact of etiology on both seizure and neurodevelopmental outcome, and mortality.ResultsOf 686 children with epilepsy onset <18 years, 125 (18.2%) presented with focal‐onset seizures in infancy. Median follow‐up for this group was 10.9 years (interquartile range [IQR] 6.2, 19.3). Etiology was identified in 65.6% (structural N = 62, genetic N = 13, both structural and genetic N = 3, metabolic N = 4). Of 107 patients followed >2 years, 38 (35.5%) developed drug‐resistant epilepsy (DRE). DRE was more likely with younger age at onset, known etiology, and presence of epileptic spasms. Sixty‐eight (63.0% of those with follow‐up) were developmentally delayed at last follow‐up, and known etiology, DRE, and presence of epileptic spasms were significantly associated with delay (p < .001 for all). Fifteen patients (12.0%) died at a median age of 7.1 years (IQR 1.7, 21.7), but only one death was seizure related (suspected sudden unexpected death in epilepsy [SUDEP]). Of 20 infants with normal development at onset and no known etiology with >2 years follow‐up, none developed DRE, all were seizure‐free at last follow‐up (95% off antiseizure medications [ASMs]), and all remained developmentally normal.SignificanceInfantile‐onset focal epilepsy accounts for 18% of all epilepsy in childhood, is frequently due to known etiologies, and has a high rate of DRE. However, developmentally normal infants without a known cause appear to have a very favorable course.