Wirrell, Elaine

AbstractLimited guidance exists regarding the assessment and management of psychogenic non‐epileptic seizures (PNES) in children. Our aim was to develop consensus‐based recommendations to fill this gap. The members of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Task Force on Pediatric Psychiatric Issues conducted a scoping review adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐SR) standards. This was supplemented with a Delphi process sent to pediatric PNES experts. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement. The systematic search identified 77 studies, the majority (55%) of which were retrospective (only one randomized clinical trial). The primary means of PNES identification was video electroencephalography (vEEG) in 84% of studies. Better outcome was associated with access to counseling/psychological intervention. Children with PNES have more frequent psychiatric disorders than controls. The Delphi resulted in 22 recommendations: Assessment—There was consensus on the importance of (1) taking a comprehensive developmental history; (2) obtaining a description of the events; (3) asking about potential stressors; (4) the need to use vEEG if available parent, self, and school reports and video recordings can contribute to a “probable” diagnosis; and (5) that invasive provocation techniques or deceit should not be employed. Management—There was consensus about the (1) need for a professional with expertise in epilepsy to remain involved for a period after PNES diagnosis; (2) provision of appropriate educational materials to the child and caregivers; and (3) that the decision on treatment modality for PNES in children should consider the child's age, cognitive ability, and family factors. Comorbidities—There was consensus that all children with PNES should be screened for mental health and neurodevelopmental difficulties. Recommendations to facilitate the assessment and management of PNES in children were developed. Future directions to fill knowledge gaps were proposed.

With more than 6000 attendees between in-person and virtual offerings, the American Epilepsy Society Meeting 2022 in Nashville, felt as busy as in prepandemic times. An ever-growing number of physicians, scientists, and allied health professionals gathered to learn a variety of topics about epilepsy. The program was carefully tailored to meet the needs of professionals with different interests and career stages. This article summarizes the different symposia presented at the meeting. Basic science lectures addressed the primary elements of seizure generation and pathophysiology of epilepsy in different disease states. Scientists congregated to learn about anti-seizure medications, mechanisms of action, and new tools to treat epilepsy including surgery and neurostimulation. Some symposia were also dedicated to discuss epilepsy comorbidities and practical issues regarding epilepsy care. An increasing number of patient advocates discussing their stories were intertwined within scientific activities. Many smaller group sessions targeted more specific topics to encourage member participation, including Special Interest Groups, Investigator, and Skills Workshops. Special lectures included the renown Hoyer and Lombroso, an ILAE/IBE joint session, a spotlight on the impact of Dobbs v. Jackson on reproductive health in epilepsy, and a joint session with the NAEC on coding and reimbursement policies. The hot topics symposium was focused on traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic epilepsy. A balanced collaboration with the industry allowed presentations of the latest pharmaceutical and engineering advances in satellite symposia.

AbstractObjectiveThe objective of this study was to determine areas of consensus among an international panel of experts for the clinical presentation and diagnosis of epilepsy with eyelid myoclonia (EEM; formerly known as Jeavons syndrome) to improve a timely diagnosis.MethodsAn international steering committee was convened of physicians and patients/caregivers with expertise in EEM. This committee summarized the current literature and identified an international panel of experts (comprising 25 physicians and five patients/caregivers). This international expert panel participated in a modified Delphi process, including three rounds of surveys to determine areas of consensus for the diagnosis of EEM.ResultsThere was a strong consensus that EEM is a female predominant generalized epilepsy syndrome with onset between 3 and 12 years of age and that eyelid myoclonia must be present to make the diagnosis. There was a strong consensus that eyelid myoclonia may go unrecognized for years prior to an epilepsy diagnosis. There was consensus that generalized tonic–clonic and absence seizures are typically or occasionally seen in patients. There was a consensus that atonic or focal seizures should lead to the consideration of reclassification or alternate diagnoses. There was a strong consensus that electroencephalography is required, whereas magnetic resonance imaging is not required for diagnosis. There was a strong consensus to perform genetic testing (either epilepsy gene panel or whole exome sequencing) when one or a combination of factors was present: family history of epilepsy, intellectual disability, or drug‐resistant epilepsy.SignificanceThis international expert panel identified multiple areas of consensus regarding the presentation and evaluation of EEM. These areas of consensus may be used to inform clinical practice to shorten the time to the appropriate diagnosis.

AbstractObjectiveThere are limited data about the treatment and management of epilepsy with eyelid myoclonia (EEM). The objective of this study was to determine areas of consensus among an international panel of experts for the management of EEM (formerly known as Jeavons syndrome).MethodsAn international steering committee was convened of physicians and patients/caregivers with expertise in EEM. This committee summarized the current literature and identified an international panel of experts (comprising 25 physicians and five patients/caregivers). This panel participated in a modified Delphi process, including three rounds of surveys to determine areas of consensus for the treatment, other areas of management, and prognosis for EEM.ResultsThere was a strong consensus for valproic acid as the first‐line treatment, with levetiracetam or lamotrigine as preferable alternatives for women of childbearing age. There was a moderate consensus that ethosuximide and clobazam are also efficacious. There was a strong consensus to avoid sodium channel‐blocking medications, except for lamotrigine, as they may worsen seizure control. There was consensus that seizures typically persist into adulthood, with remission occurring in <50% of patients. There was less agreement about other areas of management, including dietary therapy, lens therapy, candidacy for driving, and outcome.SignificanceThis international expert panel identified multiple areas of consensus regarding the optimal management of EEM. These areas of consensus may inform clinical practice to improve the management of EEM. In addition, multiple areas with less agreement were identified, which highlight topics for further research.

This commentary is on the original article by Chiron et al on pages 1607–1616 of this issue.

AbstractCorrectly diagnosing and classifying seizures and epilepsies is paramount to ensure the delivery of optimal care to patients with epilepsy. Focal seizures, defined as those that originate within networks limited to one hemisphere, are primarily subdivided into focal aware, focal impaired awareness, and focal to bilateral tonic–clonic seizures. Focal epilepsies account for most epilepsy cases both in children and adults. In children, focal epilepsies are typically subdivided in three groups: self‐limited focal epilepsy syndromes (e.g., self‐limited epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes), focal epilepsy of unknown cause but which do not meet criteria for a self‐limited focal epilepsy syndrome, and focal epilepsy of known cause (e.g., structural lesions—developmental or acquired). In adults, focal epilepsies are often acquired and may be caused by a structural lesion such as stroke, infection and traumatic brain injury, or brain tumors, vascular malformations, metabolic disorders, autoimmune, and/or genetic causes. In addition to seizure semiology, neuroimaging, neurophysiology, and neuropathology constitute the cornerstones of a diagnostic evaluation. Patients with focal epilepsy who become drug‐resistant should promptly undergo assessment in an epilepsy center. After excluding pseudo‐resistance, these patients should be considered for presurgical evaluation as a means to identify the location and extent of the epileptogenic zone and assess their candidacy for a surgical procedure. The goal of this seminar in epileptology is to summarize clinically relevant information concerning focal epilepsies. This contributes to the ILAE's mission to ensure that worldwide healthcare professionals, patients, and caregivers continue to have access to high‐quality educational resources concerning epilepsy.