SummaryAn international consensus clinical practice statement issued in 2011 ranked psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) among the top three neuropsychiatric problems. An ILAE PNES Task Force was founded and initially charged with summarizing the current state of the art in terms of diagnosis and treatment, resulting in two publications. The first described different levels of diagnostic certainty. The second summarized current knowledge of management approaches. The present paper summarizes an international workshop of the ILAE PNES Task Force that focused on the current understanding and management of PNES around the world. We initially provide a knowledge update about the etiology, epidemiology, and prognosis of PNES—in adults and in special patient groups, such as children, older adults, and those with intellectual disability. We then explore clinical management pathways and obstacles to optimal care for this disorder around the world by focusing on a number of countries with different cultural backgrounds and at very different stages of social and economic development (United Kingdom, U.S.A., Zambia, Georgia, China, and Japan). Although evidence‐based methods for the diagnosis and treatment of PNES have now been described, and much is known about the biopsychosocial underpinnings of this disorder, this paper describes gaps in care (not only in less developed countries) that result in patients with PNES not having adequate access to healthcare provisions. A range of challenges requiring solutions tailored to different healthcare systems emerges. Continued attention to PNES by the ILAE and other national and international neurologic, psychiatric, and health organizations, along with ongoing international collaboration, should ensure that patients with PNES do not lose out as healthcare services evolve around the world.

SUMMARYIn patients with epilepsy, coexisting psychoses, either interictal (IIP) or postictal (PIP), are associated with serious disturbance in psychosocial function and well-being, and often require the care of a specialist. Unfortunately, evidence-based treatment systems for psychosis in patients with epilepsy have not yet been established. This article aims to propose concise and practical treatment procedures for IIP and PIP based on currently available data and international consensus statements, and primarily targeting nonpsychiatrist epileptologists who are often the first to be involved in the management of these complex patients. Accurate and early diagnosis of IIP and PIP and their staging in terms of acuity and severity form the essential first step in management. It is important to suspect the presence of psychosis whenever patients manifest unusual behavior. Knowledge of psychopathology and both individual and epilepsy-related vulnerabilities relevant to IIP and PIP facilitate early diagnosis. Treatment for IIP involves (1) obtaining consent to psychiatric treatment from the patient, whenever possible, (2) optimization of antiepileptic drugs, and (3) initiation of antipsychotic pharmacotherapy in line with symptom severity and severity of behavioral and functional disturbance. Basic psychosocial interventions will help reinforce adherence to treatment and should be made available. Due consideration must be given to patients' ability to provide informed consent to treatment in the short term, with the issue being revisited regularly over time. Given the often prolonged and recurrent nature of IIP, treatment frequently needs to be long-term. Treatment of PIP consists of two aspects, that is, acute protective measures and preventive procedures in repetitive episodes. Protective measures prioritize the management of risk in the early stages, and may involve sedation with or without the use of antipsychotic drugs, and the judicious application of local mental health legislation if appropriate. As for preventative procedures, optimizing seizure control by adjusting antiepileptic drugs or by surgical treatment is necessary. KEY WORDS: Epilepsy, Psychosis, Interictal psychosis, Postictal psychosis, Treatment, Guideline.Although psychotic illnesses in patients with epilepsy have been long studied, the literature thus far has leaned toward descriptive psychopathology and establishment of etiologic and neuropathologic links. In contrast, there are only a few systematic studies that have evaluated treatment strategies (Adachi, 2005;Sachdev, 2007). The responsibility for initial management of these patients can fall on a range of professionals in addition to epileptologists, and experience in the management of psychotic disorders can vary, depending for instance on whether the treatment setting is in a tertiary referral center with access to neuropsychiatric expertise. We aim to propose treatment procedures, based on available data, for two main types of epilepsy-related psychoses (i.e., interictal psychosis and ...

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.

No abstract

Schizophrenia and epileptic psychosis showed different symptom profiles. On average, epilepsy patients with interictal psychoses achieved higher remission rates with lower doses of antipsychotic drugs as compared to patients with schizophrenia in the present 1-year follow-up study.