Citations

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.

AbstractPresence of focal to bilateral tonic–clonic seizures (FBTCS) in focal epilepsy is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Risk factors for FBTCS are poorly understood, and little is known regarding FBTCS recurrence after treatment initiation. This study aimed to investigate factors related to FBTCS in newly diagnosed focal epilepsy and their recurrence after starting antiseizure medications (ASMs) in the Human Epilepsy Project (HEP) cohort. HEP was an international, prospective cohort study that enrolled people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy within 4 months of treatment initiation and followed them for up to 6 years. Baseline characteristics, treatment choices, and seizure outcomes were collected. Descriptive and inferential statistical analysis was conducted to assess the differences between study participants who had FBTCS and those who never experienced FBTCS. A total of 443 participants were included in this analysis; 77% (n = 342) had FBTCS at some point prior to or within the study period. In participants with FBTCS, regardless of initial seizure type, diagnosis was mostly made after FBTCS (335/342, 98%). After treatment initiation, FBTCS did not recur in 57% (n = 194/342) of cases. A higher number of total pretreatment seizures (median = 16 vs. 11, p = .048, Mann–Whitney U‐test), predominantly focal aware seizures (FAS) or focal impaired awareness seizures (FIAS; median = 15 vs. 10, p = .049, Mann Whitney U‐test), was associated with no recurrence in FBTCS after treatment initiation. Of 108 participants without FBTCS prior to treatment, only seven (6%) developed FBTCS after treatment initiation. There was no significant difference in choice of initial ASM class (levetiracetam vs. sodium channel blockers) between participants who experienced FBTCS and those who did not. This study highlights the significance of FBTCS among individuals with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. The majority of participants who experienced FBTCS were diagnosed with epilepsy after experiencing their first FBTCS despite preceding FAS/FIAS. The more frequent FAS/FIAS in participants whose FBTCS resolved may be a characteristic of their epilepsy.

AbstractRacial disparities affect multiple dimensions of epilepsy care including epilepsy surgery. This study aims to further explore these disparities by determining the utilization of invasive neuromodulation devices according to race and ethnicity in a multicenter study of patients living with focal drug‐resistant epilepsy (DRE). We performed a post hoc analysis of the Human Epilepsy Project 2 (HEP2) data. HEP2 is a prospective study of patients living with focal DRE involving 10 sites distributed across the United States. There were no statistical differences in the racial distribution of the study population compared to the US population using census data except for patients reporting more than one race. Of 154 patients enrolled in HEP2, 55 (36%) underwent invasive neuromodulation for DRE management at some point in the course of their epilepsy. Of those, 36 (71%) were patients who identified as White. Patients were significantly less likely to have a device if they identified solely as Black/African American than if they did not (odds ratio = .21, 95% confidence interval = .05–.96, p = .03). Invasive neuromodulation for management of DRE is underutilized in the Black/African American population, indicating a new facet of racial disparities in epilepsy care.

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.

AbstractObjectiveThis study was undertaken to ascertain the natural history and patterns of antiseizure medication (ASM) use in newly diagnosed focal epilepsy patients who were initially started on monotherapy.MethodsThe data were derived from the Human Epilepsy Project. Differences between the durations of the most commonly first prescribed ASM monotherapies were assessed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Subjects were classified into three groups: monotherapy, sequential monotherapy, and polytherapy.ResultsA total of 443 patients were included in the analysis, with a median age of 32 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 20–44) and median follow‐up time of 3.2 years (IQR = 2.4–4.2); 161 (36.3%) patients remained on monotherapy with their initially prescribed ASM at the time of their last follow‐up. The mean (SEM) and median (IQR) duration that patients stayed on monotherapy with their initial ASM was 2.1 (2.0–2.2) and 1.9 (.3–3.5) years, respectively. The most commonly prescribed initial ASM was levetiracetam (254, 57.3%), followed by lamotrigine (77, 17.4%), oxcarbazepine (38, 8.6%), and carbamazepine (24, 5.4%). Among those who did not remain on the initial monotherapy, 167 (59.2%) transitioned to another ASM as monotherapy (sequential monotherapy) and 115 (40.8%) ended up on polytherapy. Patients remained significantly longer on lamotrigine (mean = 2.8 years, median = 3.1 years) compared to levetiracetam (mean = 2.0 years, median = 1.5 years) as a first prescribed medication (hazard ratio = 1.5, 95% confidence interval = 1.0–2.2). As the study progressed, the proportion of patients on lamotrigine, carbamazepine, and oxcarbazepine as well as other sodium channel agents increased from a little more than one third (154, 34.8%) of patients to more than two thirds (303, 68.4%) of patients.SignificanceSlightly more than one third of focal epilepsy patients remain on monotherapy with their first prescribed ASM. Approximately three in five patients transition to monotherapy with another ASM, whereas approximately two in five end up on polytherapy. Patients remain on lamotrigine for a longer duration compared to levetiracetam when it is prescribed as the initial monotherapy.

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.

AbstractObjectiveVisual assessment of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from the Human Epilepsy Project 1 (HEP1) found 18% of participants had atrophic brain changes relative to age without known etiology. Here, we identify the underlying factors related to brain volume differences in people with focal epilepsy enrolled in HEP1.MethodsEnrollment data for participants with complete records and brain MRIs were analyzed, including 391 participants aged 12–60 years. HEP1 excluded developmental or cognitive delay with intelligence quotient <70, and participants reported any formal learning disability diagnoses, repeated grades, and remediation. Prediagnostic seizures were quantified by semiology, frequency, and duration. T1‐weighted brain MRIs were analyzed using Sequence Adaptive Multimodal Segmentation (FreeSurfer v7.2), from which a brain tissue volume to intracranial volume ratio was derived and compared to clinically relevant participant characteristics.ResultsBrain tissue volume changes observable on visual analyses were quantified, and a brain tissue volume to intracranial volume ratio was derived to compare with clinically relevant variables. Learning difficulties were associated with decreased brain tissue volume to intracranial volume, with a ratio reduction of .005 for each learning difficulty reported (95% confidence interval [CI] = −.007 to −.002, p = .0003). Each 10‐year increase in age at MRI was associated with a ratio reduction of .006 (95% CI = −.007 to −.005, p < .0001). For male participants, the ratio was .011 less than for female participants (95% CI = −.014 to −.007, p < .0001). There were no effects from seizures, employment, education, seizure semiology, or temporal lobe electroencephalographic abnormalities.SignificanceThis study shows lower brain tissue volume to intracranial volume in people with newly treated focal epilepsy and learning difficulties, suggesting developmental factors are an important marker of brain pathology related to neuroanatomical changes in focal epilepsy. Like the general population, there were also independent associations between brain volume, age, and sex in the study population.

AbstractObjectivesDrug treatment for children with epilepsy should, ideally, be governed by evidence from adequate and well‐controlled clinical studies. However, these studies are difficult to conduct, and so direct evidence supporting the informed use of specific drugs is often lacking. The Research Roundtable for Epilepsy (RRE) met in 2020 to align on an approach to therapy development for focal seizures in children age 1 month <2 years of age.MethodsThe RRE reviewed the regulatory landscape, epidemiology, seizure semiology, antiseizure medicine pharmacology, and safety issues applicable to this population.ResultsAfter reviewing evidence, the conclusion was that pediatric efficacy trials would be impracticable to conduct but a waiver of the regulatory requirement to conduct any study would lead to an absence of information to guide dosing in a critical population. Review of available data and discussion of RRE attendees led to the conclusion that the requirements for extrapolation of efficacy from older children down to infants from age 1 month to <2 years old appeared to be met. After the RRE, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved brivaracetam for use in children with focal epilepsy above the age of 1 month in August 2021 and lacosamide in October 2021, both based on the principle of extrapolation from data in older children.SignificanceThese recommendations should result in more rapid accessibility of antiseizure medications for infants.