Our attempts to understand and classify seizures and epilepsies have been progressing over recent decades. Originally based on the phenomenology of behavioral seizures and scalp electroencephalography (EEG), the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE)–endorsed Classification system has evolved as newer technologies, such as neuroimaging and genetics, have expanded what we understand to be epilepsy syndromes. The recent report of the ILAE 2005–2009 Commission on Classification and Terminology published in Epilepsia in 2010 (Berg et al., 2010) proposed a flexible approach, along multiple axes, to incorporate newer, albeit ongoing, understandings of the epilepsies. In their commentary, Berg and Scheffer (2011) emphasize that the current state of the classification is in flux, as they state: “these recommendations are admittedly imperfect and follow perhaps too closely the old idiopathic-symptomatic-cryptogenic distinctions. …they were intended as part of a transition phase toward the goal of developing rational, scientifically justifiable approaches for a true classification of causes based on scientific understanding of how they are related. This approach must be constructed in such a way as to allow updating and revision as knowledge grows.” As a coauthor of the original Berg et al. (2010) report, I endorsed it because the new Classification system represents a significant step forward and a valuable reference tool for prognosis, and possibly for treatment-related decisions for those with epilepsy. The new Classification system also begins to address the use of better terms to describe major classes of seizures. In his commentary, Shorvon (2011) emphasizes the need to provide an etiologic classification of epilepsy—which is indeed a key component of the new Classification system. He also offers a divergent view, suggesting a return to the older nomenclature—which the new proposal is trying to change as it begins to address the mechanisms and causes of epilepsy. Therefore, although I thank Dr. Shorvon for his thought-provoking commentary, I propose that we start using and testing the new terminology, which best reflects our current state of knowledge. The need for a mechanistic approach based on our evolving understanding of pathophysiology and on the information derived from the impressive explosion of technology, has also been voiced by others. The participants of a workshop on “Conceptual dichotomies in classifying epilepsies,” organized by Capovilla in Monreale, Italy and published in the Gray Matters of Epilepsia (2009), agreed that the nomenclature should depict state-of-the-art concepts. Because they could not identify an optimum nomenclature, the terms type 1, type 2, and type 3 were proposed. The Commission’s 2010 proposal further elaborated on this issue, providing a justification for adopting the terms: Genetic, Symptomatic/Metabolic, and Unknown, instead of type 1, type 2, and type 3. It is my opinion that the terms “idiopathic” and “cryptogenic” should be replaced by more specific terms that better reflect the underlying etiology. Another suggestion by Shorvon is the addition of a new category of “provoked epilepsies.” This is an interesting concept. However, within our epilepsy community, it is highly debated whether drug-induced seizures, febrile seizures, etc. are actually the expression of an epilepsy syndrome. In fact, in basic science studies, the use of proconvulsants to provoke seizures is considered to represent a model of seizures and not a model of epilepsy (see Pitkanen et al., 2006). The latter should depict the chronic, enduring changes that characterize epilepsy. Before the publication of its report in 2010, the Commission’s proposal was circulated to all ILAE Chapters and placed on the Web for commentaries. In the published report (Berg et al., 2010), the authors took into account the suggestions received from many of our colleagues. Additional discussions along with further advances in biogenetics and imaging will help us to clarify the remaining issues and further evolve the Classification system. The 2005–2009 Commission on Classification and Terminology deserves a great deal of thanks from the international epilepsy community for tackling a topic in which we all have a stake and for which we all want a voice. The current Commission on Classification (2009–2013) is preparing a final draft, to be submitted for approval by the ILAE General Assembly at the 2013 International Epilepsy Congress as the official ILAE position on classification. Each proposed change to the Classification system involves consensus and compromise. As President of the ILAE, I sincerely hope that we will continue to maintain an open dialogue and to work together to reach a consensus for the most appropriate terminology. I receive research support from NIH: R01-NS20253-22 (PI), (R01-NS043209 (Investigator), 2U01-NS045911 (Investigator), V01-NS053998 (Investigator), and the Heffer Family Foundation (PI). I am Associate Editor of Neurobiology of Disease and serve on the Editorial Boards of Epileptic Disorders and Brain and Development. I am currently a consultant to Eisai. I confirm that I have read the Journal’s position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this report is consistent with those guidelines.
Read full abstract