Citations

Abstract The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) is a global organization dedicated to improving the lives of people with epilepsy through education, research, and advocacy. Recognizing the need for broader engagement and multidisciplinary collaboration, the ILAE has established five sections: Young Epilepsy Section (YES), Nursing, Social Work and Social Services (SWSSS), Neurotechnology, and Pharmacy. These sections aim to strengthen professional networks, enhance education, and promote innovation in epilepsy care. YES fosters leadership and participation among early‐career professionals, whereas the Nursing Section addresses gaps in epilepsy‐specific training and competency development. SWSSS emphasizes psychosocial care, advocacy, and health equity, supporting Intersectoral Global Action Plan (IGAP) objectives through culturally sensitive interventions. The Neurotechnology section advances the integration and development of innovative tools for diagnosis and treatment, and the Pharmacy section focuses on optimizing medication management and access to antiseizure medications globally. Collectively, these sections contribute to the WHO IGAP by improving policy, care delivery, research, and public health responses. Looking ahead, ILAE seeks to expand multidisciplinary participation, encourage cross‐sectional collaboration, and maintain its role as a leading force in global epilepsy care. Through these initiatives, ILAE continues to build capacity, foster inclusivity, and drive progress toward equitable, comprehensive epilepsy services worldwide. Plain Language Summary The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) is the global organization responsible for all healthcare professionals involved in the care of those with epilepsy. Recognizing the increasing number of different disciplines now contributing to epilepsy care, and the need to develop professionals of the future, the ILAE has recognized “sections” of like‐minded individuals to encourage networking and communication. Together, these sections contribute to the WHO Intersectoral Global Action Plan (IGAP) by improving policy, care delivery, research, and public health responses. Moving forward, the ILAE seeks to expand multidisciplinary participation, encourage collaboration, and maintain its role as a leading force in global epilepsy care.

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.

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.

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.

AbstractThe goal of this paper is to provide updated diagnostic criteria for the epilepsy syndromes that have a variable age of onset, based on expert consensus of the International League Against Epilepsy Nosology and Definitions Taskforce (2017–2021). We use language consistent with current accepted epilepsy and seizure classifications and incorporate knowledge from advances in genetics, electroencephalography, and imaging. Our aim in delineating the epilepsy syndromes that present at a variable age is to aid diagnosis and to guide investigations for etiology and treatments for these patients.

Abstract The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Task Force on Nosology and Definitions proposes a classification and definition of epilepsy syndromes in the neonate and infant with seizure onset up to 2 years of age. The incidence of epilepsy is high in this age group and epilepsy is frequently associated with significant comorbidities and mortality. The licensing of syndrome specific antiseizure medications following randomized controlled trials and the development of precision, gene‐related therapies are two of the drivers defining the electroclinical phenotypes of syndromes with onset in infancy. The principal aim of this proposal, consistent with the 2017 ILAE Classification of the Epilepsies, is to support epilepsy diagnosis and emphasize the importance of classifying epilepsy in an individual both by syndrome and etiology. For each syndrome, we report epidemiology, clinical course, seizure types, electroencephalography (EEG), neuroimaging, genetics, and differential diagnosis. Syndromes are separated into self‐limited syndromes, where there is likely to be spontaneous remission and developmental and epileptic encephalopathies , diseases where there is developmental impairment related to both the underlying etiology independent of epileptiform activity and the epileptic encephalopathy. The emerging class of etiology‐specific epilepsy syndromes, where there is a specific etiology for the epilepsy that is associated with a clearly defined, relatively uniform, and distinct clinical phenotype in most affected individuals as well as consistent EEG, neuroimaging, and/or genetic correlates, is presented. The number of etiology‐defined syndromes will continue to increase, and these newly described syndromes will in time be incorporated into this classification. The tables summarize mandatory features, cautionary alerts, and exclusionary features for the common syndromes. Guidance is given on the criteria for syndrome diagnosis in resource‐limited regions where laboratory confirmation, including EEG, MRI, and genetic testing, might not be available.

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 2017 International League Against Epilepsy classification has defined a three‐tier system with epilepsy syndrome identification at the third level. Although a syndrome cannot be determined in all children with epilepsy, identification of a specific syndrome provides guidance on management and prognosis. In this paper, we describe the childhood onset epilepsy syndromes, most of which have both mandatory seizure type(s) and interictal electroencephalographic (EEG) features. Based on the 2017 Classification of Seizures and Epilepsies, some syndrome names have been updated using terms directly describing the seizure semiology. Epilepsy syndromes beginning in childhood have been divided into three categories: (1) self‐limited focal epilepsies, comprising four syndromes: self‐limited epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes, self‐limited epilepsy with autonomic seizures, childhood occipital visual epilepsy, and photosensitive occipital lobe epilepsy; (2) generalized epilepsies, comprising three syndromes: childhood absence epilepsy, epilepsy with myoclonic absence, and epilepsy with eyelid myoclonia; and (3) developmental and/or epileptic encephalopathies, comprising five syndromes: epilepsy with myoclonic–atonic seizures, Lennox–Gastaut syndrome, developmental and/or epileptic encephalopathy with spike‐and‐wave activation in sleep, hemiconvulsion–hemiplegia–epilepsy syndrome, and febrile infection‐related epilepsy syndrome. We define each, highlighting the mandatory seizure(s), EEG features, phenotypic variations, and findings from key investigations.

Abstract The objective of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to provide recommendations for healthcare personnel working with patients with epilepsy on the use of wearable devices for automated seizure detection in patients with epilepsy, in outpatient, ambulatory settings. The Working Group of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) and the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN) developed the CPG according to the methodology proposed by the ILAE Epilepsy Guidelines Working Group. We reviewed the published evidence using The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis (PRISMA) statement and evaluated the evidence and formulated the recommendations following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. We found high level of evidence for the accuracy of automated detection of generalized tonic‐clonic seizures (GTCS) and focal‐to‐bilateral tonic‐clonic seizures (FBTCS) and recommend the use of wearable automated seizure detection devices for selected patients when accurate detection of GTCS and FBTCS is recommended as a clinical adjunct. We also found a moderate level of evidence for seizure types without GTCS or FBTCS. However, it was uncertain whether the detected alarms resulted in meaningful clinical outcomes for the patients. We recommend using clinically validated devices for automated detection of GTCS and FBTCS, especially in unsupervised patients, where alarms can result in rapid intervention (weak/conditional recommendation). At present, we do not recommend clinical use of the currently available devices for other seizure types (weak/conditional recommendation). Further research and development are needed to improve the performance of automated seizure detection and to document their accuracy and clinical utility.