Samuel Wiebe

Epilepsy was defined conceptually in 2005 as a disorder of the brain characterized by an enduring predisposition to generate epileptic seizures. This definition is usually practically applied as having two unprovoked seizures >24 h apart. The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) accepted recommendations of a task force altering the practical definition for special circumstances that do not meet the two unprovoked seizures criteria. The task force proposed that epilepsy be considered to be a disease of the brain defined by any of the following conditions: (1) At least two unprovoked (or reflex) seizures occurring >24 h apart; (2) one unprovoked (or reflex) seizure and a probability of further seizures similar to the general recurrence risk (at least 60%) after two unprovoked seizures, occurring over the next 10 years; (3) diagnosis of an epilepsy syndrome. Epilepsy is considered to be resolved for individuals who either had an age-dependent epilepsy syndrome but are now past the applicable age or who have remained seizure-free for the last 10 years and off antiseizure medicines for at least the last 5 years. "Resolved" is not necessarily identical to the conventional view of "remission or "cure." Different practical definitions may be formed and used for various specific purposes. This revised definition of epilepsy brings the term in concordance with common use. A PowerPoint slide summarizing this article is available for download in the Supporting Information section here.

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Classification of the Epilepsies has been updated to reflect our gain in understanding of the epilepsies and their underlying mechanisms following the major scientific advances that have taken place since the last ratified classification in 1989. As a critical tool for the practicing clinician, epilepsy classification must be relevant and dynamic to changes in thinking, yet robust and translatable to all areas of the globe. Its primary purpose is for diagnosis of patients, but it is also critical for epilepsy research, development of antiepileptic therapies, and communication around the world. The new classification originates from a draft document submitted for public comments in 2013, which was revised to incorporate extensive feedback from the international epilepsy community over several rounds of consultation. It presents three levels, starting with seizure type, where it assumes that the patient is having epileptic seizures as defined by the new 2017 ILAE Seizure Classification. After diagnosis of the seizure type, the next step is diagnosis of epilepsy type, including focal epilepsy, generalized epilepsy, combined generalized, and focal epilepsy, and also an unknown epilepsy group. The third level is that of epilepsy syndrome, where a specific syndromic diagnosis can be made. The new classification incorporates etiology along each stage, emphasizing the need to consider etiology at each step of diagnosis, as it often carries significant treatment implications. Etiology is broken into six subgroups, selected because of their potential therapeutic consequences. New terminology is introduced such as developmental and epileptic encephalopathy. The term benign is replaced by the terms self-limited and pharmacoresponsive, to be used where appropriate. It is hoped that this new framework will assist in improving epilepsy care and research in the 21st century.

To improve patient care and facilitate clinical research, the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) appointed a Task Force to formulate a consensus definition of drug resistant epilepsy. The overall framework of the definition has two "hierarchical" levels: Level 1 provides a general scheme to categorize response to each therapeutic intervention, including a minimum dataset of knowledge about the intervention that would be needed; Level 2 provides a core definition of drug resistant epilepsy using a set of essential criteria based on the categorization of response (from Level 1) to trials of antiepileptic drugs. It is proposed as a testable hypothesis that drug resistant epilepsy is defined as failure of adequate trials of two tolerated, appropriately chosen and used antiepileptic drug schedules (whether as monotherapies or in combination) to achieve sustained seizure freedom. This definition can be further refined when new evidence emerges. The rationale behind the definition and the principles governing its proper use are discussed, and examples to illustrate its application in clinical practice are provided.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials of surgery for epilepsy have not been conducted, because of the difficulties involved in designing and implementing feasible studies. The lack of data supporting the therapeutic usefulness of surgery precludes making strong recommendations for patients with epilepsy. We conducted a randomized, controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of surgery for temporal-lobe epilepsy. METHODS: Eighty patients with temporal-lobe epilepsy were randomly assigned to surgery (40 patients) or treatment with antiepileptic drugs for one year (40 patients). Optimal medical therapy and primary outcomes were assessed by epileptologists who were unaware of the patients' treatment assignments. The primary outcome was freedom from seizures that impair awareness of self and surroundings. Secondary outcomes were the frequency and severity of seizures, the quality of life, disability, and death. RESULTS: At one year, the cumulative proportion of patients who were free of seizures impairing awareness was 58 percent in the surgical group and 8 percent in the medical group (P<0.001). The patients in the surgical group had fewer seizures impairing awareness and a significantly better quality of life (P<0.001 for both comparisons) than the patients in the medical group. Four patients (10 percent) had adverse effects of surgery. One patient in the medical group died. CONCLUSIONS: In temporal-lobe epilepsy, surgery is superior to prolonged medical therapy. Randomized trials of surgery for epilepsy are feasible and appear to yield precise estimates of treatment effects.

OBJECTIVE: To review population-based studies of the prevalence and incidence of epilepsy worldwide and use meta-analytic techniques to explore factors that may explain heterogeneity between estimates. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standards were followed. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for articles published on the prevalence or incidence of epilepsy since 1985. Abstract, full-text review, and data abstraction were conducted in duplicate. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were used to explore the association between prevalence or incidence, age group, sex, country level income, and study quality. RESULTS: A total of 222 studies were included (197 on prevalence, 48 on incidence). The point prevalence of active epilepsy was 6.38 per 1,000 persons (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 5.57-7.30), while the lifetime prevalence was 7.60 per 1,000 persons (95% CI 6.17-9.38). The annual cumulative incidence of epilepsy was 67.77 per 100,000 persons (95% CI 56.69-81.03) while the incidence rate was 61.44 per 100,000 person-years (95% CI 50.75-74.38). The prevalence of epilepsy did not differ by age group, sex, or study quality. The active annual period prevalence, lifetime prevalence, and incidence rate of epilepsy were higher in low to middle income countries. Epilepsies of unknown etiology and those with generalized seizures had the highest prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a comprehensive synthesis of the prevalence and incidence of epilepsy from published international studies and offers insight into factors that contribute to heterogeneity between estimates. Significant gaps (e.g., lack of incidence studies, stratification by age groups) were identified. Standardized reporting of future epidemiologic studies of epilepsy is needed.