Classifying epilepsy pragmatically: Past, present, and future.

The classification of epilepsy is essential for people with epilepsy and their families, healthcare providers, physicians and researchers. The International League Against Epilepsy proposed updated seizure and epilepsy classifications in 2017, while another four-dimensional epilepsy classification was updated in 2019. An Integrated Epilepsy Classification system was proposed in 2020. Existing classifications, however, lack consideration of important pragmatic factors relevant to the day-to-day life of people with epilepsy and stakeholders. Despite promising developments, consideration of comorbidities in brain development, genetic causes, and environmental triggers of epilepsy remains largely user-dependent in existing classifications. Demographics of epilepsy have changed over time, while existing classification schemes exhibit caveats. A pragmatic classification scheme should incorporate these factors to provide a nuanced classification. Validation across disparate contexts will ensure widespread applicability and ease of use. A team-based approach may simplify communication between healthcare personnel, while an individual-centred perspective may empower people with epilepsy. Together, incorporating these elements into a modern but pragmatic classification scheme may ensure optimal care for people with epilepsy by emphasising cohesiveness among its myriad users. Technological advancements such as 7T MRI, next-generation sequencing, and artificial intelligence may affect future classification efforts.

Could the 2017 ILAE and the four-dimensional epilepsy classifications be merged to a new "Integrated Epilepsy Classification"?

Over the last few decades the ILAE classifications for seizures and epilepsies (ILAE-EC) have been updated repeatedly to reflect the substantial progress that has been made in diagnosis and understanding of the etiology of epilepsies and seizures and to correct some of the shortcomings of the terminology used by the original taxonomy from the 1980s. However, these proposals have not been universally accepted or used in routine clinical practice. During the same period, a separate classification known as the "Four-dimensional epilepsy classification" (4D-EC) was developed which includes a seizure classification based exclusively on ictal symptomatology, which has been tested and adapted over the years. The extensive arguments for and against these two classification systems made in the past have mainly focused on the shortcomings of each system, presuming that they are incompatible. As a further more detailed discussion of the differences seemed relatively unproductive, we here review and assess the concordance between these two approaches that has evolved over time, to consider whether a classification incorporating the best aspects of the two approaches is feasible. To facilitate further discussion in this direction we outline a concrete proposal showing how such a compromise could be accomplished, the "Integrated Epilepsy Classification". This consists of five categories derived to different degrees from both of the classification systems: 1) a "Headline" summarizing localization and etiology for the less specialized users, 2) "Seizure type(s)", 3) "Epilepsy type" (focal, generalized or unknown allowing to add the epilepsy syndrome if available), 4) "Etiology", and 5) "Comorbidities & patient preferences".