Cross, J. Helen

Abstract Objective There is a need to develop a comprehensive, formalized, and globally applicable epilepsy surgery curriculum in order to help standardize the quality of epilepsy surgery practice in the world. Methods The Epilepsy Surgery Educational Task Force of the ILAE developed a competency‐based epilepsy surgery educational curriculum comprised of four domains: Diagnosis, Counseling, Pre‐surgical Work‐up, and Surgical Techniques. To evaluate this educational curriculum, a survey questionnaire consisting of 11 items was sent out for feedback to ILAE and IESS members. The survey questionnaire asked respondents to rate the degree of importance of each competency on a five‐point scale that ranged from “extremely important” to “not at all important” and provided space for free text comments. All competencies that were rated as “slightly important” or “somewhat important” by more than 10% of responders, as well as all free text feedback comments, were fully reviewed, and the final curriculum was adjusted accordingly. Results One hundred and twenty‐two responses ( n = 122) were submitted by the ILAE and IESS communities. Seventy‐one percent (71.9%) of the responses came from neurosurgeons of varied experience and training levels. Ninety‐four percent (94.4%) of responders stated that they “support a curriculum to determine the competency of neurosurgeons participating in the care of people with epilepsy in my country,” and 94.3% confirmed that they “would be interested in taking or would recommend an ILAE course based on these competencies, that would provide an ILAE certificate of completion.” Relevant changes within the curriculum were made based on feedback. Significance The newly developed ILAE comprehensive epilepsy surgery educational curriculum has a high level of support from neurosurgeons and neurologists around the world and shows potential for broad acceptance and implementation.

Abstract The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) has updated the operational classification of epileptic seizures, building upon the framework established in 2017. This revision, informed by the implementation experience, involved a working group appointed by the ILAE Executive Committee. Comprising 37 members from all ILAE regions, the group utilized a modified Delphi process, requiring a consensus threshold of more than two thirds for any proposal. Following public comments, the Executive Committee appointed seven additional experts to the revision task force to address and incorporate the issues raised, as appropriate. The updated classification maintains four main seizure classes: Focal, Generalized, Unknown (whether focal or generalized), and Unclassified. Taxonomic rules distinguish classifiers, which are considered to reflect biological classes and directly impact clinical management, from descriptors, which indicate other important seizure characteristics. Focal seizures and those of unknown origin are further classified by the patient's state of consciousness (impaired or preserved) during the seizure, defined operationally through clinical assessment of awareness and responsiveness. If the state of consciousness is undetermined, the seizure is classified under the parent term, that is, the main seizure class (focal seizure or seizure of unknown origin). Generalized seizures are grouped into absence seizures, generalized tonic–clonic seizures, and other generalized seizures, now including recognition of negative myoclonus as a seizure type. Seizures are described in the basic version as with or without observable manifestations, whereas an expanded version utilizes the chronological sequence of seizure semiology. This updated classification comprises four main classes and 21 seizure types. Special emphasis was placed on ensuring translatability into languages beyond English. Its aim is to establish a common language for all health care professionals involved in epilepsy care, from resource‐limited areas to highly specialized centers, and to provide accessible terms for patients and caregivers.

AbstractFenfluramine (FFA), an antiseizure medication (ASM) with serotonergic and sigma‐1 receptor activity, is used to manage patients with developmental and epileptic encephalopathies (DEEs). It is approved in the US for treating seizures associated with Dravet syndrome (DS) and Lennox–Gastaut syndrome (LGS) in patients ≥2 years old and as add‐on therapy for seizures associated with DS and LGS in the EU, UK, and Japan in similarly aged patients. Consensus guidelines for treatment of DS have recommended FFA to be an early‐line ASM, and it has also shown efficacy in managing seizures associated with LGS. DS and LGS are DEEs associated with a range of seizure types, developmental impairments, and multiple comorbidities. Here we provide case vignettes describing 4 patients (3 DS and 1 LGS) aged 4–29 years old in whom up to 14 ASMs had previously failed, to illustrate real‐world practice issues encountered by neurologists. This review provides guidance on the use of FFA in the context of ASM polytherapy and drug–drug interactions (DDIs), behavioral issues, dose titration, and adverse events. Along with data from the clinical trial program, these case vignettes emphasize the low risk of DDIs, a generally well‐tolerated safety profile, and other seizure and nonseizure benefits (eg, improved cognition and sleep) associated with the use of FFA in DS or LGS.Plain Language SummaryFenfluramine is used to treat seizures in individuals with Dravet syndrome and Lennox–Gastaut syndrome, but there are a range of issues that clinicians may face when treating patients. This review highlights four patients from the authors’ everyday clinical work and offers guidance and practical considerations by neurologists with expertise in managing these complex conditions related to drug interactions, dosing, and side effects associated with fenfluramine.

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.

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.