Applicability of the new ILAE classification for epilepsies (2010) in persons with epilepsy at a tertiary care center in India

Department of Neurology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Epilepsia (Impact Factor: 4.57). 01/2013; 54(4). DOI: 10.1111/epi.12086
Source: PubMed


To test the applicability of the new International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) 2010 classification for epilepsies and to compare it with the ILAE 1989 classification and the ILAE 2001 diagnostic scheme in developing countries with limited resources such as India.

Prospective data of 500 consecutive patients with epilepsy, presenting in neurology department of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, was collected from January 2011 to June 2012 and analyzed according to the three systems proposed by ILAE in 1989, 2001, and 2010.

Key findings:
All 500 patients could be classified in the ILAE 1989 classification system, but only 413 in the ILAE 2001 diagnostic scheme (in axes 3 and 4) and 420 in the ILAE 2010 classification system. Leading categories were localization-related epilepsies, symptomatic focal epilepsies, perinatal insult, and epilepsies attributed to structural and metabolic cause in ILAE 1989, 2001 axis 3, 2001 axis 4, and 2010 systems, respectively. The ILAE 1989 classification system could categorize significantly greater numbers of patients compared to the 2001 and 2010 systems, whereas the latter two remained similar.

A large group of patients remained unclassified in the new classification system despite our tremendous gain in knowledge through improved imaging, genomics, and molecular biology, and so on, which could be attributed to lack of availability of facilities in developing countries. Dichotomy of localization-related and generalized epilepsy still makes for a fundamental and pragmatic working diagnosis and guides the physician about the extent of investigations and treatment especially in "epilepsies of unknown cause."

19 Reads

  • Epilepsy Currents 03/2014; 14(2):84-5. DOI:10.5698/1535-7597-14.2.84 · 3.26 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: Feeling stigmatized or having comorbid depression in a PWE may significantly influence epilepsy care and treatment. An important contributory factor to this can be the expressed emotions (EEs) from family, friends, or society. The present study aimed at understanding the influence of EEs, as exhibited by close relatives, on the perception of stigma and comorbid depression experienced by PWEs. Method: Eighty PWEs aged 18 years and above, both genders, visiting neurology OPD in AIIMS Hospital, were recruited. Using the PHQ-09, we subdivided them into Group I (PWEs with comorbid depression) and Group II (PWEs without comorbid depression), followed by administration of Levels of Expressed Emotions Scale and Stigma Scale for Epilepsy, respectively. Results: The comparative analysis, using independent t-test (for categorical data), Pearson's correlation (for continuous data), and multivariate regression analysis, reflected significant influence of EEs on depression and stigma, with more than 20% of the participants reporting comorbid depression, out of which more than 50% further expressed feelings of inferiority or disgrace due to the ways in which family or society discriminated them from healthy persons, thereby highlighting a greater associations of high EEs as opposed to low EEs from key individuals on patients' perception of stigma or feeling of depression. Conclusion: The result suggested that EEs from a relative might go unnoticed but may significantly overwhelm the patient, thereby making him succumb to depression or feeling stigmatized. The analysis of such a clinical pro-file and relationship between EEs and perceived stigma/depression may help us understand the pattern of attribution styles adopted by PWEs, thereby utilizing it further for enhancing the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy for facilitating sustained recovery and improved quality of life for PWEs.
    Epilepsy & Behavior 10/2015; 52(Pt A). DOI:10.1016/j.yebeh.2015.08.008 · 2.26 Impact Factor