The most frequent diagnosis in our cohort of elderly persons with new-onset epilepsy was temporal lobe epilepsy. Non-lesional temporal lobe epilepsy was not uncommon. Epileptogenecity was relatively low in elderly patients and they responded well to antiepileptic medication.

No abstract

Summary This article critiques the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) 2015‐2017 classifications of epilepsy, epileptic seizures, and status epilepticus. It points out the following shortcomings of the ILAE classifications: (1) they mix semiological terms with epileptogenic zone terminology; (2) simple and widely accepted terminology has been replaced by complex terminology containing less information; (3) seizure evolution cannot be described in any detail; (4) in the four‐level epilepsy classification, level two (epilepsy category) overlaps almost 100% with diagnostic level one (seizure type); and (5) the design of different classifications with distinct frameworks for newborns, adults, and patients in status epilepticus is confusing. The authors stress the importance of validating the new ILAE classifications and feel that the decision of Epilepsia to accept only manuscripts that use the ILAE classifications is premature and regrettable.

for the GENCAT Study Group IMPORTANCE Carbamazepine, a commonly used antiepileptic drug, is one of the most common causes of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (cADRs) worldwide. The allele HLA-A*31:01 is reportedly associated with carbamazepine-induced cADRs in Japanese and European populations; however, the clinical utility of HLA-A*31:01 has not been evaluated.OBJECTIVE To assess the use of HLA-A*31:01 genetic screening to identify Japanese individuals at risk of carbamazepine-induced cADRs.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study was conducted across 36 hospitals in Japan from January 2012 to November 2014 among 1202 patients who had been deemed suitable to start treatment with carbamazepine. Preemptive HLA-A*31:01 genetic screening was performed for 1187 participants. Patients who did not start treatment with carbamazepine or alternative drugs were excluded. Participants were interviewed once weekly for 8 weeks to monitor the development of cADRs. Data analysis was performed from June 8, 2015, to December 27, 2016.EXPOSURES Neuropsychiatrists were asked to prescribe carbamazepine for patients who tested negative for HLA-A*31:01 and alternative drugs for those who tested positive for HLA-A*31:01. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Incidence of carbamazepine-induced cADRs.RESULTS Of the 1130 included patients who were prescribed carbamazepine or alternative drugs, the mean (range) age was 37.4 (0-95) years, 614 (54.3%) were men, and 198 (17.5%) were positive for HLA-A*31:01. Expert dermatologists identified 23 patients (2.0%) who had carbamazepine-induced cADRs, of which 4 patients required hospitalization. Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome was observed for 3 patients, maculopapular eruption for 9 patients, erythema multiforme for 5 patients, and an undetermined type of cADR for 6 patients. No patient developed Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis. Compared with historical controls, the incidence of carbamazepine-induced cADRs was significantly decreased (for BioBank Japan data: incidence, 3.4%; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-1.00; P = .048; for the Japan Medical Data Centre claims database: incidence, 5.1%; odds ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26-0.59; P < .001).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Preemptive HLA-A*31:01 genetic screening significantly decreased the incidence of carbamazepine-induced cADRs among Japanese patients, which suggests that it may be warranted in routine clinical practice.

Over the last few decades the ILAE classifications for seizures and epilepsies (ILAE-EC) have been updated repeatedly to reflect the substantial progress that has been made in diagnosis and understanding of the etiology of epilepsies and seizures and to correct some of the shortcomings of the terminology used by the original taxonomy from the 1980s. However, these proposals have not been universally accepted or used in routine clinical practice. During the same period, a separate classification known as the "Four-dimensional epilepsy classification" (4D-EC) was developed which includes a seizure classification based exclusively on ictal symptomatology, which has been tested and adapted over the years. The extensive arguments for and against these two classification systems made in the past have mainly focused on the shortcomings of each system, presuming that they are incompatible. As a further more detailed discussion of the differences seemed relatively unproductive, we here review and assess the concordance between these two approaches that has evolved over time, to consider whether a classification incorporating the best aspects of the two approaches is feasible. To facilitate further discussion in this direction we outline a concrete proposal showing how such a compromise could be accomplished, the "Integrated Epilepsy Classification". This consists of five categories derived to different degrees from both of the classification systems: 1) a "Headline" summarizing localization and etiology for the less specialized users, 2) "Seizure type(s)", 3) "Epilepsy type" (focal, generalized or unknown allowing to add the epilepsy syndrome if available), 4) "Etiology", and 5) "Comorbidities & patient preferences".