Citations

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.

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.

SummaryObjectiveEvaluate the seizure‐reduction response and safety of mesial temporal lobe (MTL) brain‐responsive stimulation in adults with medically intractable partial‐onset seizures of mesial temporal lobe origin.MethodsSubjects with mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE) were identified from prospective clinical trials of a brain‐responsive neurostimulator (RNS System, NeuroPace). The seizure reduction over years 2–6 postimplantation was calculated by assessing the seizure frequency compared to a preimplantation baseline. Safety was assessed based on reported adverse events.ResultsThere were 111 subjects with MTLE; 72% of subjects had bilateral MTL onsets and 28% had unilateral onsets. Subjects had one to four leads placed; only two leads could be connected to the device. Seventy‐six subjects had depth leads only, 29 had both depth and strip leads, and 6 had only strip leads. The mean follow‐up was 6.1 ± (standard deviation) 2.2 years. The median percent seizure reduction was 70% (last observation carried forward). Twenty‐nine percent of subjects experienced at least one seizure‐free period of 6 months or longer, and 15% experienced at least one seizure‐free period of 1 year or longer. There was no difference in seizure reduction in subjects with and without mesial temporal sclerosis (MTS), bilateral MTL onsets, prior resection, prior intracranial monitoring, and prior vagus nerve stimulation. In addition, seizure reduction was not dependent on the location of depth leads relative to the hippocampus. The most frequent serious device‐related adverse event was soft tissue implant‐site infection (overall rate, including events categorized as device‐related, uncertain, or not device‐related: 0.03 per implant year, which is not greater than with other neurostimulation devices).SignificanceBrain‐responsive stimulation represents a safe and effective treatment option for patients with medically intractable epilepsy, including patients with unilateral or bilateral MTLE who are not candidates for temporal lobectomy or who have failed a prior MTL resection.

SummaryObjectiveEvaluate the seizure‐reduction response and safety of brain‐responsive stimulation in adults with medically intractable partial‐onset seizures of neocortical origin.MethodsPatients with partial seizures of neocortical origin were identified from prospective clinical trials of a brain‐responsive neurostimulator (RNS System, NeuroPace). The seizure reduction over years 2–6 postimplantation was calculated by assessing the seizure frequency compared to a preimplantation baseline. Safety was assessed based on reported adverse events. Additional analyses considered safety and seizure reduction according to lobe and functional area (e.g., eloquent cortex) of seizure onset.ResultsThere were 126 patients with seizures of neocortical onset. The average follow‐up was 6.1 implant years. The median percent seizure reduction was 70% in patients with frontal and parietal seizure onsets, 58% in those with temporal neocortical onsets, and 51% in those with multilobar onsets (last observation carried forward [LOCF] analysis). Twenty‐six percent of patients experienced at least one seizure‐free period of 6 months or longer and 14% experienced at least one seizure‐free period of 1 year or longer. Patients with lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; 77% reduction, LOCF) and those with normal MRI findings (45% reduction, LOCF) benefitted, although the treatment response was more robust in patients with an MRI lesion (p = 0.02, generalized estimating equation [GEE]). There were no differences in the seizure reduction in patients with and without prior epilepsy surgery or vagus nerve stimulation. Stimulation parameters used for treatment did not cause acute or chronic neurologic deficits, even in eloquent cortical areas. The rates of infection (0.017 per patient implant year) and perioperative hemorrhage (0.8%) were not greater than with other neurostimulation devices.SignificanceBrain‐responsive stimulation represents a safe and effective treatment option for patients with medically intractable epilepsy, including adults with seizures of neocortical onset, and those with onsets from eloquent cortex.