Sperling, Michael R

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.

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.

AbstractObjectiveThe medial temporal lobe (MTL) encodes and recalls memories and can be a predominant site for interictal spikes (IS) in patients with focal epilepsy. It is unclear whether memory deficits are due to IS in the MTL producing a transient decline. Here, we investigated whether IS in the MTL subregions and lateral temporal cortex impact episodic memory encoding and recall.MethodsSeventy‐eight participants undergoing presurgical evaluation for medically refractory focal epilepsy with depth electrodes placed in the temporal lobe participated in a verbal free recall task. IS were manually annotated during the pre‐encoding, encoding, and recall epochs. We examined the effect of IS on word recall using mixed‐effects logistic regression.ResultsIS in the left hippocampus (odds ratio [OR] = .73, 95% confidence interval [CI] = .63–.84, p < .001) and left middle temporal gyrus (OR = .46, 95% CI = .27–.78, p < .05) during word encoding decreased subsequent recall performance. Within the left hippocampus, this effect was specific for area CA1 (OR = .76, 95% CI = .66–.88, p < .01) and dentate gyrus (OR = .74, 95% CI = .62–.89, p < .05). IS in other MTL subregions or inferior and superior temporal gyrus and IS occurring during the prestimulus window did not affect word encoding (p > .05). IS during retrieval in right hippocampal (OR = .22, 95% CI = .08–.63, p = .01) and parahippocampal regions (OR = .24, 95% CI = .07–.8, p < .05) reduced the probability of recalling a word.SignificanceIS in medial and lateral temporal cortex contribute to transient memory decline during verbal episodic memory.

Abstract Neuromodulation is a key therapeutic tool for clinicians managing patients with drug‐resistant epilepsy. Multiple devices are available with long‐term follow‐up and real‐world experience. The aim of this review is to give a practical summary of available neuromodulation techniques to guide the selection of modalities, focusing on patient selection for devices, common approaches and techniques for initiation of programming, and outpatient management issues. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), deep brain stimulation of the anterior nucleus of the thalamus (DBS‐ANT), and responsive neurostimulation (RNS) are all supported by randomized controlled trials that show safety and a significant impact on seizure reduction, as well as a suggestion of reduction in the risk of sudden unexplained death in epilepsy (SUDEP). Significant seizure reductions are observed after 3 months for DBS, RNS, and VNS in randomized controlled trials, and efficacy appears to improve with time out to 7 to 10 years of follow‐up for all modalities, albeit in uncontrolled follow‐up or retrospective studies. A significant number of patients experience seizure‐free intervals of 6 months or more with all three modalities. Number and location of epileptogenic foci are important factors affecting efficacy, and together with comorbidities such as severe mood or sleep disorders, may influence the choice of modality. Programming has evolved—DBS is typically initiated at lower current/voltage than used in the pivotal trial, whereas target charge density is lower with RNS, however generalizable optimal parameters are yet to be defined. Noninvasive brain stimulation is an emerging stimulation modality, although it is currently not used widely. In summary, clinical practice has evolved from those established in pivotal trials. Guidance is now available for clinicians who wish to expand their approach, and choice of neuromodulation technique may be tailored to individual patients based on their epilepsy characteristics, risk tolerance, and preferences.

Abstract In drug-resistant focal epilepsy, interictal high-frequency oscillations (HFOs) recorded from intracranial EEG (iEEG) may provide clinical information for delineating epileptogenic brain tissue. The iEEG electrode contacts that contain HFO are hypothesized to delineate the epileptogenic zone; their resection should then lead to postsurgical seizure freedom. We test whether our prospective definition of clinically relevant HFO is in agreement with postsurgical seizure outcome. The algorithm is fully automated and is equally applied to all data sets. The aim is to assess the reliability of the proposed detector and analysis approach. We use an automated data-independent prospective definition of clinically relevant HFO that has been validated in data from two independent epilepsy centres. In this study, we combine retrospectively collected data sets from nine independent epilepsy centres. The analysis is blinded to clinical outcome. We use iEEG recordings during NREM sleep with a minimum of 12 epochs of 5 min of NREM sleep. We automatically detect HFO in the ripple (80–250 Hz) and in the fast ripple (250–500 Hz) band. There is no manual rejection of events in this fully automated algorithm. The type of HFO that we consider clinically relevant is defined as the simultaneous occurrence of a fast ripple and a ripple. We calculate the temporal consistency of each patient’s HFO rates over several data epochs within and between nights. Patients with temporal consistency &lt;50% are excluded from further analysis. We determine whether all electrode contacts with high HFO rate are included in the resection volume and whether seizure freedom (ILAE 1) was achieved at ≥2 years follow-up. Applying a previously validated algorithm to a large cohort from several independent epilepsy centres may advance the clinical relevance and the generalizability of HFO analysis as essential next step for use of HFO in clinical practice.

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 epileptic network hypothesis and epileptogenic zone hypothesis are two theories of ictogenesis. The network hypothesis posits that coordinated activity among interconnected nodes produces seizures. The epileptogenic zone hypothesis posits that distinct regions are necessary and sufficient for seizure generation. High-frequency oscillations, and particularly fast ripples, are thought to be biomarkers of the epileptogenic zone. We sought to test these theories by comparing high-frequency oscillation rates and networks in surgical responders and non-responders, with no appreciable change in seizure frequency or severity, within a retrospective cohort of 48 patients implanted with stereo-EEG electrodes. We recorded inter-ictal activity during non-rapid eye movement sleep and semi-automatically detected and quantified high-frequency oscillations. Each electrode contact was localized in normalized coordinates. We found that the accuracy of seizure onset zone electrode contact classification using high-frequency oscillation rates was not significantly different in surgical responders and non-responders, suggesting that in non-responders the epileptogenic zone partially encompassed the seizure onset zone(s) (P &gt; 0.05). We also found that in the responders, fast ripple on oscillations exhibited a higher spectral content in the seizure onset zone compared with the non-seizure onset zone (P &lt; 1 × 10−5). By contrast, in the non-responders, fast ripple had a lower spectral content in the seizure onset zone (P &lt; 1 × 10−5). We constructed two different networks of fast ripple with a spectral content &gt;350 Hz. The first was a rate–distance network that multiplied the Euclidian distance between fast ripple-generating contacts by the average rate of fast ripple in the two contacts. The radius of the rate–distance network, which excluded seizure onset zone nodes, discriminated non-responders, including patients not offered resection or responsive neurostimulation due to diffuse multifocal onsets, with an accuracy of 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56–0.98]. The second fast ripple network was constructed using the mutual information between the timing of the events to measure functional connectivity. For most non-responders, this network had a longer characteristic path length, lower mean local efficiency in the non-seizure onset zone, and a higher nodal strength among non-seizure onset zone nodes relative to seizure onset zone nodes. The graphical theoretical measures from the rate–distance and mutual information networks of 22 non- responsive neurostimulation treated patients was used to train a support vector machine, which when tested on 13 distinct patients classified non-responders with an accuracy of 0.92 (95% CI 0.75–1). These results indicate patients who do not respond to surgery or those not selected for resection or responsive neurostimulation can be explained by the epileptic network hypothesis that is a decentralized network consisting of widely distributed, hyperexcitable fast ripple-generating nodes.

AbstractObjectiveCurrent diazepam nasal spray labeling requires waiting 4 h before administering a second dose. The objective of the current analyses was to examine safety and pharmacokinetic profiles of second doses of diazepam nasal spray given 0−4 h after the first dose.MethodsTwo datasets were analyzed. The first, a long‐term, repeat‐dose safety study of diazepam nasal spray, compared rates of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious TEAEs, and treatment‐related TEAEs for patients receiving ≥1 second dose ≤4 h versus all second doses >4 h after the first. The second was a population pharmacokinetic analysis using data from three phase 1 studies to model drug exposure when a second dose of diazepam nasal spray was administered across multiple time points (1 min−4 h) following the first dose.ResultsIn the repeat‐dose safety study, a second dose of diazepam nasal spray was administered ≤24 h after the first to treat 485 seizure clusters in 79 patients. Rates of TEAEs were similar between patients receiving ≥1 second dose in ≤4 h (89.5%, n = 38) compared with >4–24 h only (80.5%, n = 41). The most common treatment‐related TEAEs were associated with nasal discomfort, which was mild or moderate and transient. There were no reports of respiratory or cardiac depression. The pharmacokinetic simulations of second doses predicted comparable elevations of plasma diazepam concentrations with administrations across a range of intervals after the first dose (1 min−4 h).SignificanceThese data indicate that the safety and pharmacokinetic profiles of a second dose of diazepam nasal spray administered within 4 h of the first dose are consistent with those associated with current labeling. This is potentially important for patients with seizure clusters who have a recurrent seizure within 4 h of first treatment and might benefit from immediate retreatment to reduce the risk of progression to status epilepticus.

Abstract Objective An exploratory analysis from a long‐term, phase 3, open‐label, repeat‐dose safety study of diazepam nasal spray for acute treatment of seizure clusters assessed the use of a second dose up to 24 hours after the initial dose and effectiveness in potentially reducing the number of seizures. Methods Seizures and doses were recorded in diaries. Results Of 175 patients enrolled, 163 received ≥1 dose of diazepam nasal spray and were included in the safety population; those patients received a total of 4390 doses for a total of 3853 seizure clusters. Less than half of these patients used a second dose a least once during the study (79 patients [48.5%]), with a total of 485 second doses for seizure clusters (12.6% of all seizure clusters). Among these 79 patients, 33 (41.8%) used only one second dose during the study (range: 1–82). The proportion of seizure clusters treated with a second dose over time was consistently low across 24 h: 0–4 h, 152 (3.9%); 4–6 h, 72 (1.9%); 6–8 h, 39 (1.0%); 8–12 h, 55 (1.4%); 12–16 h, 42 (1.1%); 16–20 h, 42 (1.1%); 20–24 h, 83 (2.2%). Rates of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and treatment‐related TEAEs occurring within 1 day of a second dose were low (15.2% and 5.1%, respectively). Significance Patients with epilepsy may experience seizure clusters lasting up to 24 hours, and little is known about the effectiveness of rescue therapies for that duration. The current labeling of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved outpatient treatments for seizure clusters (rectal diazepam, intranasal midazolam, and diazepam nasal spray) allows for a second dose, if needed, for control. These findings support the safety profile of second doses, and the low use supports the effectiveness of diazepam nasal spray across 24 hours.