Nabbout, Rima

Abstract A variety of terms, such as “antiepileptic,” “anticonvulsant,” and “antiseizure” have been historically applied to medications for the treatment of seizure disorders. Terminology is important because using terms that do not accurately reflect the action of specific treatments may result in a misunderstanding of their effects and inappropriate use. The present International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) position paper used a Delphi approach to develop recommendations on English‐language terminology applicable to pharmacological agents currently approved for treating seizure disorders. There was consensus that these medications should be collectively named “antiseizure medications”. This term accurately reflects their primarily symptomatic effect against seizures and reduces the possibility of health care practitioners, patients, or caregivers having undue expectations or an incorrect understanding of the real action of these medications. The term “antiseizure” to describe these agents does not exclude the possibility of beneficial effects on the course of the disease and comorbidities that result from the downstream effects of seizures, whenever these beneficial effects can be explained solely by the suppression of seizure activity. It is acknowledged that other treatments, mostly under development, can exert direct favorable actions on the underlying disease or its progression, by having “antiepileptogenic” or “disease‐modifying” effects. A more‐refined terminology to describe precisely these actions needs to be developed.

Abstract We propose an instructive figure that summarized the classification of epilepsy syndromes according to the 2022 report of the ILAE Task Force on Nosology and Definitions. Our aim is to present on the same figure different concepts such as the names of epilepsy syndromes, their extreme and classical ages of onset, their epilepsy types (generalized, focal, or generalized and focal) but also their membership in groups of epilepsy syndromes as for self‐limited or developmental and epileptic encephalopathies. With this figure, we provide an interactive tool, as supplementary data, helping to present this classification and link it to electro‐clinical mandatory, alerts, and exclusionary criteria of each syndrome, in accordance with the ILAE position papers on syndromes classification and nosology. This report may be used as an illustrative tool for teaching epilepsy syndromes and as a practical and comprehensive aid for the classification of epilepsy individuals' syndromes.

AbstractObjectiveThis study was undertaken to evaluate the long‐term safety and effectiveness of fenfluramine in patients with Lennox–Gastaut syndrome (LGS).MethodsEligible patients with LGS who completed a 14‐week phase 3 randomized clinical trial enrolled in an open‐label extension (OLE; NCT03355209). All patients were initially started on .2 mg/kg/day fenfluramine and after 1 month were titrated by effectiveness and tolerability, which were assessed at 3‐month intervals. The protocol‐specified treatment duration was 12 months, but COVID‐19‐related delays resulted in 142 patients completing their final visit after 12 months.ResultsAs of October 19, 2020, 247 patients were enrolled in the OLE. Mean age was 14.3 ± 7.6 years (79 [32%] adults) and median fenfluramine treatment duration was 364 days; 88.3% of patients received 2–4 concomitant antiseizure medications. Median percentage change in monthly drop seizure frequency was −28.6% over the entire OLE (n = 241) and −50.5% at Month 15 (n = 142,p < .0001); 75 of 241 patients (31.1%) experienced ≥50% reduction in drop seizure frequency. Median percentage change in nondrop seizure frequency was −45.9% (n = 192,p = .0038). Generalized tonic–clonic seizures (GTCS) and tonic seizures were most responsive to treatment, with median reductions over the entire OLE of 48.8% (p < .0001,n = 106) and 35.8% (p < .0001,n = 186), respectively. A total of 37.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 31.4%–44.1%,n = 237) of investigators and 35.2% of caregivers (95% CI = 29.1%–41.8%,n = 230) rated patients as Much Improved/Very Much Improved on the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale. The most frequent treatment‐emergent adverse events were decreased appetite (16.2%) and fatigue (13.4%). No cases of valvular heart disease (VHD) or pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) were observed.SignificancePatients with LGS experienced sustained reductions in drop seizure frequency on fenfluramine treatment, with a particularly robust reduction in frequency of GTCS, the key risk factor for sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. Fenfluramine was generally well tolerated; VHD or PAH was not observed long‐term. Fenfluramine may provide an important long‐term treatment option for LGS.

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.