Martin J. Brodie

BACKGROUND: More than 30 percent of patients with epilepsy have inadequate control of seizures with drug therapy, but why this happens and whether it can be predicted are unknown. We studied the response to antiepileptic drugs in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy to identify factors associated with subsequent poor control of seizures. METHODS: We prospectively studied 525 patients (age, 9 to 93 years) who were given a diagnosis, treated, and followed up at a single center between 1984 and 1997. Epilepsy was classified as idiopathic (with a presumed genetic basis), symptomatic (resulting from a structural abnormality), or cryptogenic (resulting from an unknown underlying cause). Patients were considered to be seizure-free if they had not had any seizures for at least one year. RESULTS: Among the 525 patients, 333 (63 percent) remained seizure-free during antiepileptic-drug treatment or after treatment was stopped. The prevalence of persistent seizures was higher in patients with symptomatic or cryptogenic epilepsy than in those with idiopathic epilepsy (40 percent vs. 26 percent, P=0.004) and in patients who had had more than 20 seizures before starting treatment than in those who had had fewer (51 percent vs. 29 percent, P<0.001). The seizure-free rate was similar in patients who were treated with a single established drug (67 percent) and patients who were treated with a single new drug (69 percent). Among 470 previously untreated patients, 222 (47 percent) became seizure-free during treatment with their first antiepileptic drug and 67 (14 percent) became seizure-free during treatment with a second or third drug. In 12 patients (3 percent) epilepsy was controlled by treatment with two drugs. Among patients who had no response to the first drug, the percentage who subsequently became seizure-free was smaller (11 percent) when treatment failure was due to lack of efficacy than when it was due to intolerable side effects (41 percent) or an idiosyncratic reaction (55 percent). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who have many seizures before therapy or who have an inadequate response to initial treatment with antiepileptic drugs are likely to have refractory epilepsy.

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.

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Commission on Classification and Terminology has revised concepts, terminology, and approaches for classifying seizures and forms of epilepsy. Generalized and focal are redefined for seizures as occurring in and rapidly engaging bilaterally distributed networks (generalized) and within networks limited to one hemisphere and either discretely localized or more widely distributed (focal). Classification of generalized seizures is simplified. No natural classification for focal seizures exists; focal seizures should be described according to their manifestations (e.g., dyscognitive, focal motor). The concepts of generalized and focal do not apply to electroclinical syndromes. Genetic, structural-metabolic, and unknown represent modified concepts to replace idiopathic, symptomatic, and cryptogenic. Not all epilepsies are recognized as electroclinical syndromes. Organization of forms of epilepsy is first by specificity: electroclinical syndromes, nonsyndromic epilepsies with structural-metabolic causes, and epilepsies of unknown cause. Further organization within these divisions can be accomplished in a flexible manner depending on purpose. Natural classes (e.g., specific underlying cause, age at onset, associated seizure type), or pragmatic groupings (e.g., epileptic encephalopathies, self-limited electroclinical syndromes) may serve as the basis for organizing knowledge about recognized forms of epilepsy and facilitate identification of new forms.

Importance: A study published in 2000 showed that more than one-third of adults with epilepsy have inadequate control of seizures with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). This study evaluates overall treatment outcomes in light of the introduction of more than 1 dozen new AEDs in the past 2 decades. Objective: To assess long-term treatment outcome in patients with newly diagnosed and treated epilepsy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This longitudinal observational cohort study was conducted at the Epilepsy Unit of the Western Infirmary in Glasgow, Scotland. A total of 1795 individuals who were newly treated for epilepsy with AEDs between July 1, 1982, and October 31, 2012, were included in this analysis. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 2 years (until October 31, 2014) or until death, whichever came sooner. Data analysis was completed between March 2015 and May 2016. Exposures: Treatment with antiepileptic drugs for patients newly diagnosed with epilepsy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Seizure control was assessed at the end of the study period. Probability of achieving 1-year seizure freedom was estimated for each AED regimen prescribed. Multivariable models assessed the associations between risk factors and AED treatment outcome after adjustments were made for demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: Of the 1795 included patients, 964 (53.7%) were male; the median age was 33 years (range, 9-93 years). At the end of the study period, 1144 patients (63.7%) had been seizure free for the previous year or longer. Among those achieving 1-year seizure freedom, 993 (86.8%) were taking monotherapy and 1028 (89.9%) had achieved seizure control with the first or second AED regimens. Of the total patient pool, 906 (50.5%) remained seizure free for 1 year or longer with the initial AED. If this AED failed, the second and third regimens provided an additional 11.6% and 4.4% likelihoods of seizure freedom, respectively. Only 2.12% of patients attained optimal seizure control with subsequent AEDs. Epilepsy that was not successfully controlled with the first AED had 1.73 times greater odds of not responding to treatment for each subsequent medication regimen (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.56-1.91; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Despite the availability of many new AEDs with differing mechanisms of action, overall outcomes in newly diagnosed epilepsy have not improved. Most patients who attain control do so with the first or second AED. The probability of achieving seizure freedom diminishes substantially with each subsequent AED regimen tried. More than one-third of patients experience epilepsy that remains uncontrolled.

Nearly a quarter of patients with seizures have drug-resistant epilepsy. This review examines how this diagnosis should be established and how to recognize pseudoresistance. It explains possible mechanisms of drug-resistant epilepsy and presents treatment strategies.