BACKGROUND: Epilepsy, a globally prevalent neurological condition, presents distinct challenges in management, particularly for focal-onset types. This study aimed at addressing the current challenges and perspectives in focal epilepsy management, with focus on the Italian reality.
METHODS: Using the Delphi methodology, this research collected and analyzed the level of consensus of a panel of Italian epilepsy experts on key aspects of focal epilepsy care. Areas of focus included patient flow, treatment pathways, controlled versus uncontrolled epilepsy, follow-up protocols, and the relevance of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This method allowed for a comprehensive assessment of consensus and divergences in clinical opinions and practices.
RESULTS: The study achieved consensus on 23 out of 26 statements, with three items failing to reach a consensus. There was strong agreement on the importance of timely intervention, individualized treatment plans, regular follow-ups at Epilepsy Centers, and the role of PROs in clinical practice. In cases of uncontrolled focal epilepsy, there was a clear inclination to pursue alternative treatment options following the failure of two previous therapies. Divergent views were evident on the inclusion of epilepsy surgery in treatment for uncontrolled epilepsy and the routine necessity of EEG evaluations in follow-ups. Other key findings included concerns about the lack of pediatric-specific research limiting current therapeutic options in this patient population, insufficient attention to the transition from pediatric to adult care, and need for improved communication. The results highlighted the complexities in managing epilepsy, with broad consensus on patient care aspects, yet notable divergences in specific treatment and management approaches.
CONCLUSIONS: The study offered valuable insights into the current state and complexities of managing focal-onset epilepsy. It highlighted many deficiencies in the therapeutic pathway of focal-onset epilepsy in the Italian reality, while it also underscored the importance of patient-centric care, the necessity of early and appropriate intervention, and individualized treatment approaches. The findings also called for continued research, policy development, and healthcare system improvements to enhance epilepsy management, highlighting the ongoing need for tailored healthcare solutions in this evolving field.

OBJECTIVE: Cenobamate is an antiseizure medication (ASM) associated with high rates of seizure freedom and acceptable tolerability in patients with focal seizures. To achieve the optimal cenobamate dose for maximal potential effectiveness while avoiding or minimizing drug-related adverse events (AEs), the administration of cenobamate with other ASMs must be managed through concomitant ASM load reduction. A panel of Spanish epilepsy experts aimed to provide a Spanish consensus on how to adjust the dose of concomitant ASMs in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) in order to improve the effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive cenobamate.
METHODS: A three-stage modified Delphi consensus process was undertaken, including six Spanish epileptologists with extensive experience using cenobamate. Based on current literature and their own expert opinion, the expert panel reached a consensus on when and how to adjust the dosage of concomitant ASMs during cenobamate titration.
RESULTS: The expert panel agreed that tailored titration and close follow-up are required to achieve the best efficacy and tolerability when initiating cenobamate in patients receiving concomitant ASMs. When concomitant clobazam, phenytoin, phenobarbital, and sodium channel blockers are taken at high dosages, or when the patient is receiving two or more sodium channel blockers, dosages should be proactively lowered during the cenobamate titration period. Other concomitant ASMs should be reduced only if the patient reports a moderate/severe AE at any stage of the titration period.
CONCLUSIONS: Cenobamate is an effective ASM with a dose-dependent effect. To maximize effectiveness while maintaining the best tolerability profile, co-medication management is needed. The recommendations included herein provide practical guidance for proactive and reactive management of co-medication in cenobamate-treated patients with DRE and a high drug load.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with epilepsy may continue to have seizures even after treatment with several different antiseizure medications (ASMs). Cenobamate is an ASM that can reduce seizures in these patients. In this study, six Spanish experts in epilepsy discussed the best way to use cenobamate in drug-resistant epilepsy. They provide practical guidance on when and how the dose of other ASMs might be adjusted to reduce side effects and optimize the use of cenobamate.

OBJECTIVE: Recently, the 7 Tesla (7 T) Epilepsy Task Force published recommendations for 7 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with pharmaco-resistant focal epilepsy in pre-surgical evaluation. The objective of this study was to implement and evaluate this consensus protocol with respect to both its practicability and its diagnostic value/potential lesion delineation surplus effect over 3 T MRI in the pre-surgical work-up of patients with pharmaco-resistant focal onset epilepsy.
METHODS: The 7 T MRI protocol consisted of T1-weighted, T2-weighted, high-resolution-coronal T2-weighted, fluid-suppressed, fluid-and-white-matter-suppressed, and susceptibility-weighted imaging, with an overall duration of 50 min. Two neuroradiologists independently evaluated the ability of lesion identification, the detection confidence for these identified lesions, and the lesion border delineation at 7 T compared to 3 T MRI.
RESULTS: Of 41 recruited patients > 12 years of age, 38 were successfully measured and analyzed. Mean detection confidence scores were non-significantly higher at 7 T (1.95 ± 0.84 out of 3 versus 1.64 ± 1.19 out of 3 at 3 T, p = 0.050). In 50% of epilepsy patients measured at 7 T, additional findings compared to 3 T MRI were observed. Furthermore, we found improved border delineation at 7 T in 88% of patients with 3 T-visible lesions. In 19% of 3 T MR-negative cases a new potential epileptogenic lesion was detected at 7 T.
CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic yield was beneficial, but with 19% new 7 T over 3 T findings, not major. Our evaluation revealed epilepsy outcomes worse than ILAE Class 1 in two out of the four operated cases with new 7 T findings.

Valproate (VPA) is an effective treatment for epilepsy and also used in bipolar disorder. However, VPA is associated with a significant risk of birth defects and developmental disorders if used during pregnancy. This has led to the introduction of measures to reduce the use of valproate in women of childbearing potential such as the \'Prevent\' pregnancy prevention program (PPP) and the completion of an annual risk acknowledgement form (ARAF). The aim of the current audit was to assess compliance with the guidance. An audit tool was made available to neurologists registered with the Association of British Neurologists (ABN) and to epilepsy nurse specialists via the Epilepsy Nurses Association (ESNA) in the UK. Data were collected between November 2020 and March 2021. The main indication for valproate was generalised epilepsy (55.8%), followed by focal (22.5%). For most, there was documentation that the woman had been informed about the risks associated with taking valproate during pregnancy (93.1%) and the need to be on highly effective contraception or that this was not deemed appropriate (92.2%). A signed ARAF was available in the notes for 81.2% although only 66% were <12 months old. Although information had been made available for most women, there were still individuals where this was not documented. Further work is needed to facilitate identification of women taking valproate and implementation of a digital ARAF. For clinicians, the audit highlights a need to carefully counsel women about the teratogenic risks of continuing to take valproate versus the risk of deteriorating seizure control if the drug is withdrawn. This is particularly true of women with focal epilepsy, where there may be safer, equally effective, alternative anti-seizure medication (ASM). The aim should be to create a partnership of trust between the patient and clinician in order to arrive at the best clinical decision for that individual.

To update the 2004 American Academy of Neurology guideline for managing treatment-resistant (TR) epilepsy with second- and third-generation antiepileptic drugs (AEDs).
2004 criteria were used to systemically review literature (January 2003 to November 2015), classify pertinent studies according to the therapeutic rating scheme, and link recommendations to evidence strength.
Forty-two articles were included.
The following are established as effective to reduce seizure frequency (Level A): immediate-release pregabalin and perampanel for TR adult focal epilepsy (TRAFE); vigabatrin for TRAFE (not first-line treatment); rufinamide for Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) (add-on therapy). The following should be considered to decrease seizure frequency (Level B): lacosamide, eslicarbazepine, and extended-release topiramate for TRAFE (ezogabine production discontinued); immediate- and extended-release lamotrigine for generalized epilepsy with TR generalized tonic-clonic (GTC) seizures in adults; levetiracetam (add-on therapy) for TR childhood focal epilepsy (TRCFE) (1 month-16 years), TR GTC seizures, and TR juvenile myoclonic epilepsy; clobazam for LGS (add-on therapy); zonisamide for TRCFE (6-17 years); oxcarbazepine for TRCFE (1 month-4 years). The text presents Level C recommendations. AED selection depends on seizure/syndrome type, patient age, concomitant medications, and AED tolerability, safety, and efficacy. This evidence-based assessment informs AED prescription guidelines for TR epilepsy and indicates seizure types and syndromes needing more evidence. A recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) strategy allows extrapolation of efficacy across populations; therefore, for focal epilepsy, eslicarbazepine and lacosamide (oral only for pediatric use) as add-on or monotherapy in persons ≥4 years of age and perampanel as monotherapy received FDA approval.

To update the 2004 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guideline for treating new-onset focal or generalized epilepsy with second- and third-generation antiepileptic drugs (AEDs).
The 2004 AAN criteria were used to systematically review literature (January 2003-November 2015), classify pertinent studies according to the therapeutic rating scheme, and link recommendations to evidence strength.
Several second-generation AEDs are effective for new-onset focal epilepsy. Data are lacking on efficacy in new-onset generalized tonic-clonic seizures, juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, or juvenile absence epilepsy, and on efficacy of third-generation AEDs in new-onset epilepsy.
Lamotrigine (LTG) should (Level B) and levetiracetam (LEV) and zonisamide (ZNS) may (Level C) be considered in decreasing seizure frequency in adults with new-onset focal epilepsy. LTG should (Level B) and gabapentin (GBP) may (Level C) be considered in decreasing seizure frequency in patients ≥60 years of age with new-onset focal epilepsy. Unless there are compelling adverse effect-related concerns, ethosuximide or valproic acid should be considered before LTG to decrease seizure frequency in treating absence seizures in childhood absence epilepsy (level B). No high-quality studies suggest clobazam, eslicarbazepine, ezogabine, felbamate, GBP, lacosamide, LEV, LTG, oxcarbazepine, perampanel, pregabalin, rufinamide, tiagabine, topiramate, vigabatrin, or ZNS is effective in treating new-onset epilepsy because no high-quality studies exist in adults of various ages. A recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) strategy allows extrapolation of efficacy across populations; therefore, for focal epilepsy, eslicarbazepine and lacosamide (oral only for pediatric use) as add-on or monotherapy in persons ≥4 years old and perampanel as monotherapy received FDA approval.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the implementation of the clinical practice guideline \"first epileptic seizure and epilepsy in adulthood\" published in 2008 to patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy between 2008 and 2014.
METHODS: This retrospective, population-based analysis was performed on patient data of 4.1 million insurants from the German statutory health insurance. Prevalent and incident cases in adults were identified based on ICD-10 codes, using a hierarchical diagnosis selection algorithm. The first anticonvulsive agent in a newly diagnosed epilepsy patient was validated against the clinical practice guideline.
RESULTS: We determined an annual crude prevalence rate in adults between 0.946% and 1.090% and incidence rates of at least 156 per 100,000. A significant increase in guideline compliant monotherapy was found in patients with a focal epilepsy syndrome, while, among patients with idiopathic generalised epilepsies, the share of guideline noncompliant monotherapy increased. Both changes are likely due to the overall increase in prescription of levetiracetam from 19.6% in 2008 to 58.9% in 2014 in all newly treated patients. Overall, the proportion of enzyme-inducing anticonvulsants fell significantly from 20.7% in 2008 to 4.3% in 2014 (p<0.001). The likelihood to receive non-enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs was 5.82 (95% CI 4.62-7.33) higher in 2014 than in 2008.
CONCLUSIONS: Initial monotherapy for focal epilepsy is in line with current clinical practice guidelines and mainly implemented by prescription of levetiracetam. Further evaluations should address the question of whether patients treated in line with the guidelines have a favorable outcome, compared to patients not treated in line with current guidelines.

The guidelines for the surgical treatment of the movement disorders and epilepsy have been performed by the functional and stereotactic group of the Spanish Society of Neurosugery (SENEC). The guidelines are recomendations in terms of indication for surgery including timing and methods. The format are supported by prospective studies based in scientific evidence and the expert opinion of the group.

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Subcommittee for Pediatric Neuroimaging examined the usefulness of, and indications for, neuroimaging in the evaluation of children with newly diagnosed epilepsy. The retrospective and prospective published series with n > or = 30 utilizing computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (1.5 T) that evaluated children with new-onset seizure(s) were reviewed. Nearly 50% of individual imaging studies in children with localization-related new-onset seizure(s) were reported to be abnormal; 15-20% of imaging studies provided useful information on etiology or and seizure focus, and 2-4% provided information that potentially altered immediate medical management. A significant imaging abnormality in the absence of a history of a localization-related seizure, abnormal neurologic examination, or focal electroencephalography (EEG) is rare. Imaging studies in childhood absence epilepsy, juvenile absence epilepsy, juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, and benign childhood epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes (BECTS) do not identify significant structural abnormalities. Imaging provides important contributions to establishing etiology, providing prognostic information, and directing treatment in children with recently diagnosed epilepsy. Imaging is recommended when localization-related epilepsy is known or suspected, when the epilepsy classification is in doubt, or when an epilepsy syndrome with remote symptomatic cause is suspected. When available, MRI is preferred to CT because of its superior resolution, versatility, and lack of radiation.

The ILAE treatment guidelines for initial monotherapy emphasise the poor quality of information available to inform everyday clinical practice. Industry sponsored studies comparing antiepileptic drugs answer restricted licensing questions, rather than those relevant to the clinical community (patients, health professionals and founders of health care). The SANAD study, a pragmatic randomized clinical trial, offers a methodology to address some of these questions. It identifies lamotrigine as a cost-effective alternative to carbamazepine for the treatment of focal epilepsies, but confirms valproate as the most effective drug for the treatment of generalized or unclassified epilepsy.