More than 30 percent of patients with epilepsy have inadequate control of seizures with drug therapy, but why this happens and whether it can be predicted are unknown. We studied the response to antiepileptic drugs in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy to identify factors associated with subsequent poor control of seizures. We prospectively studied 525 patients (age, 9 to 93 years) who were given a diagnosis, treated, and followed up at a single center between 1984 and 1997. Epilepsy was classified as idiopathic (with a presumed genetic basis), symptomatic (resulting from a structural abnormality), or cryptogenic (resulting from an unknown underlying cause). Patients were considered to be seizure-free if they had not had any seizures for at least one year. Among the 525 patients, 333 (63 percent) remained seizure-free during antiepileptic-drug treatment or after treatment was stopped. The prevalence of persistent seizures was higher in patients with symptomatic or cryptogenic epilepsy than in those with idiopathic epilepsy (40 percent vs. 26 percent, P=0.004) and in patients who had had more than 20 seizures before starting treatment than in those who had had fewer (51 percent vs. 29 percent, P<0.001). The seizure-free rate was similar in patients who were treated with a single established drug (67 percent) and patients who were treated with a single new drug (69 percent). Among 470 previously untreated patients, 222 (47 percent) became seizure-free during treatment with their first antiepileptic drug and 67 (14 percent) became seizure-free during treatment with a second or third drug. In 12 patients (3 percent) epilepsy was controlled by treatment with two drugs. Among patients who had no response to the first drug, the percentage who subsequently became seizure-free was smaller (11 percent) when treatment failure was due to lack of efficacy than when it was due to intolerable side effects (41 percent) or an idiosyncratic reaction (55 percent). Patients who have many seizures before therapy or who have an inadequate response to initial treatment with antiepileptic drugs are likely to have refractory epilepsy.

Summary: To improve patient care and facilitate clinical research, the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) appointed a Task Force to formulate a consensus definition of drug resistant epilepsy. The overall framework of the definition has two “hierarchical” levels: Level 1 provides a general scheme to categorize response to each therapeutic intervention, including a minimum dataset of knowledge about the intervention that would be needed; Level 2 provides a core definition of drug resistant epilepsy using a set of essential criteria based on the categorization of response (from Level 1) to trials of antiepileptic drugs. It is proposed as a testable hypothesis that drug resistant epilepsy is defined as failure of adequate trials of two tolerated, appropriately chosen and used antiepileptic drug schedules (whether as monotherapies or in combination) to achieve sustained seizure freedom. This definition can be further refined when new evidence emerges. The rationale behind the definition and the principles governing its proper use are discussed, and examples to illustrate its application in clinical practice are provided.

Epilepsy is 1 of the most common serious chronic neurological disorders, estimated to affect approximately 68 million people worldwide.¹ Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are the mainstay of treatment and suppress seizure occurrence without rectifying the underlying neuropathological process. As a result, people with epilepsy often require lifelong AED treatment. (Additional therapeutic options include resective surgery, brain stimulation, and dietary therapy.²) To formulate a rational management plan for these patients, it is crucial to understand the long-term clinical courses and patterns of responses to AEDs.

Nearly a quarter of patients with seizures have drug-resistant epilepsy. This review examines how this diagnosis should be established and how to recognize pseudoresistance. It explains possible mechanisms of drug-resistant epilepsy and presents treatment strategies.

Objective: To delineate the temporal patterns of outcome and to determine the probability of seizure freedom with successive antiepileptic drug regimens in newly diagnosed epilepsy. Methods: Patients in whom epilepsy was diagnosed and the first antiepileptic drug prescribed between July 1, 1982, and April 1, 2006, were followed up until March 31, 2008. Outcomes were categorized into 4 patterns: A) early and sustained seizure freedom; B) delayed but sustained seizure freedom; C) fluctuation between periods of seizure freedom and relapse; and D) seizure freedom never attained. Probability of seizure freedom with successive drug regimens was compared. Seizure freedom was defined as no seizures for ≥1 year. Results: A total of 1,098 patients were included (median age 32 years, range 9–93). At the last clinic visit, 749 (68%) patients were seizure-free, 678 (62%) on monotherapy. Outcome pattern A was observed in 408 (37%), pattern B in 246 (22%), pattern C in 172 (16%), and pattern D in 272 (25%) patients. There was a higher probability of seizure freedom in patients receiving 1 compared to 2 drug regimens, and 2 compared to 3 regimens (p < 0.001). The difference was greater among patients with symptomatic or cryptogenic than with idiopathic epilepsy. Less than 2% of patients became seizure-free on subsequent regimens but a few did so on their sixth or seventh regimen. Conclusions: Most patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy had a constant course which could usually be predicted early. The chance of seizure freedom declined with successive drug regimens, most markedly from the first to the third and among patients with localization-related epilepsies.