Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: The annual incidence of epilepsy increases with age, from nearly 28 per 100,000 by the age of 50 years to 139 per 100,000 by the age of 75 years. Late-onset epilepsy differs from epilepsy at a young age in the prevalence of structural-related epilepsy, types of seizures, duration of seizures, and presentation with status epilepticus.

Objectives: To check the response to treatment in patients with epilepsy with age of onset of 50 years and older.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective study. The cohort included all patients referred to the Rambam epilepsy clinic between 1 November 2016 and 31 January 2018 with epilepsy onset at age 50 years or older and at least one year of follow-up at the recruitment time point and epilepsy not caused by a rapidly progressive disease.

Results: At recruitment, most patients were being treated with a single antiseizure medication (ASM); 9 of 57 patients (15.7%) met the criteria for drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). The mean duration of follow-up was 2.8 ± 1.3 years. In an intention-to-treat analysis, 7 of 57 patients (12.2%) had DRE at the last follow-up.

Conclusions: Late-onset epilepsy, which is defined as a first diagnosis in patients older than 50 years of age, is easy to control with monotherapy. The percentage of DRE in this group of patients is relatively low and stable over time.

Background: Patients with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME) are especially prone to having antiseizure medications (ASMs) withdrawal seizures (WS).

Objectives: To clarify whether WS in JME patients are caused by a high tendency of non-adherence from seizure-free patients or by a constitutive increased sensitivity to drug withdrawal.

Methods: Epilepsy patients followed in a tertiary epilepsy clinic between 2010 and 2013 were included in the study. WS prevalence was compared between drug-responsive and drug-resistant JME patients and patients with other types of epilepsy.

Results: The study included 23 JME patients (16 drug-responsive and 7 drug-resistant) and 138 patients with other epilepsies (74 drug-responsive and 64 drug-resistant). JME patients were younger and included more women than non-JME patients. Significantly more WS were seen in JME than in non-JME patients (P = 0.01) and in the drug-resistant fraction of JME patients in comparison to drug-resistant non-JME patients (P = 0.02). On logistic regression, the type of epilepsy, but not the patient’s sex, was found to significantly predict WS. No significant difference was found in the prevalence of WS between drug-responsive and drug-resistant JME patients. The main ASM discontinued in JME was valproic acid (VPA), especially in women.

Conclusion: Our findings suggest a higher sensitivity of JME patients to withdrawal of medications. It is important to educate JME patients about treatment adherence and to explain to their physicians how to carefully reduce or replace ASMs to mitigate the morbidity and mortality related to ASM withdrawal

Background: Resective epilepsy surgery is an accepted treatment option for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). Presurgical evaluation consists of a phase 1 non-invasive evaluation and a phase 2 invasive evaluation, when necessary.

Objectives: To assess the results of phase 1 evaluation in patients with focal DRE.

Methods: This observational retrospective study was performed in all consecutive DRE patients admitted to our clinic from January 2001 to July 2010, and who underwent a presurgical evaluation which included at least magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan and long-term video EEG monitoring (LTVEM).

Results: A total of 253 consecutive patients with a diagnosis of DRE (according to the ILAE recommendations) who underwent presurgical evaluation were extracted from our clinic and department registry. In 45 of these patients either imaging or ictal video EEG data were missing; the final analysis therefore involved 208 patients. The combined result of the LTVEM and the MRI scan were as follows: 102 patients (49% of the cohort) had a lesion on the MRI scan, in 77 patients (37% of the cohort) the LTVEM results were localizing and congruent with the MRI findings, and in 25 patients (12% of the cohort) the LTVEM results were either non-localizing or incongruent with the MRI findings. In 106 patients (51% of the cohort) the MRI scan was normal or had a non-specific lesion. The LTVEM was localizing in 66 of these patients (31.7% of the cohort) and non-localizing in 40 (19.2% of the cohort).

Conclusions: Although some of the patients with focal DRE can be safely treated with resective surgery based solely on the findings of phase 1 evaluation, a substantial percent of patients do need to undergo a phase 2 evaluation before a final surgical decision is made.