Which terms should be used to describe medications used in the treatment of seizure disorders? An ILAE position paper.

A variety of terms, such as "antiepileptic," "anticonvulsant," and "antiseizure" have been historically applied to medications for the treatment of seizure disorders. Terminology is important because using terms that do not accurately reflect the action of specific treatments may result in a misunderstanding of their effects and inappropriate use. The present International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) position paper used a Delphi approach to develop recommendations on English-language terminology applicable to pharmacological agents currently approved for treating seizure disorders. There was consensus that these medications should be collectively named "antiseizure medications". This term accurately reflects their primarily symptomatic effect against seizures and reduces the possibility of health care practitioners, patients, or caregivers having undue expectations or an incorrect understanding of the real action of these medications. The term "antiseizure" to describe these agents does not exclude the possibility of beneficial effects on the course of the disease and comorbidities that result from the downstream effects of seizures, whenever these beneficial effects can be explained solely by the suppression of seizure activity. It is acknowledged that other treatments, mostly under development, can exert direct favorable actions on the underlying disease or its progression, by having "antiepileptogenic" or "disease-modifying" effects. A more-refined terminology to describe precisely these actions needs to be developed.

A global survey on the attitudes of neurologists and psychiatrists about functional/psychogenic/dissociative/nonepileptic-seizures/attacks, in the search of its name.

PURPOSE: We conducted an observational study to investigate the opinions of neurologists and psychiatrists all around the world who are taking care of patients with seizures [epilepsy and functional seizures (FS)]. METHODS: Practicing neurologists and psychiatrists from around the world were invited to participate in an online survey. On 29th September 2022, an e-mail including a questionnaire was sent to the members of the International Research in Epilepsy (IR-Epil) Consortium. The study was closed on 1st March 2023. The survey, conducted in English, included questions about physicians' opinions about FS and anonymously collected data. RESULTS: In total, 1003 physicians from different regions of the world participated in the study. Both neurologists and psychiatrists identified "seizures" as their preferred term. Overall, the most preferred modifiers for "seizures" were "psychogenic" followed by "functional" by both groups. Most participants (57.9%) considered FS more difficult to treat compared to epilepsy. Both psychological and biological problems were considered as the underlying cause of FS by 61% of the respondents. Psychotherapy was considered the first treatment option for patients with FS (79.9%). CONCLUSION: Our study represents the first large-scale attempt of investigating physicians attitudes and opinions about a condition that is both frequent and clinically important. It shows that there is a broad spectrum of terms used by physicians to refer to FS. It also suggests that the biopsychosocial model has gained its status as a widely used framework to interpret and inform clinical practice on the management of patients.

Physicians' beliefs about brain surgery for drug-resistant epilepsy: A global survey.

PURPOSE: To investigate the opinions of physicians about brain surgery for drug-resistant epilepsy worldwide. METHODS: Practicing neurologists, psychiatrists, and neurosurgeons from around the world were invited to participate in an online survey. The survey anonymously collected data about demographics, years in clinical practice, discipline, nation, work setting, and answers to the questions about beliefs and attitudes about brain surgery for drug-resistant epilepsy. RESULTS: In total, 1410 physicians from 20 countries and different world regions participated. The propensity to discuss brain surgery with patients, who have drug-resistant seizures, was higher among men (versus women) [Odds Ratio (OR) 1.67, 95% CI 1.20-2.31; p = 0.002]. In comparison to neurologists, psychiatrists were less likely (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17-0.47; p < 0.001) and neurosurgeons were more likely (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.08-3.72; p = 0.028) to discuss about it. Survey participants working in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and the Former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics showed a lower propensity to discuss epilepsy surgery with patients. CONCLUSION: This study showed that on an international level, there is still a knowledge gap concerning epilepsy surgery and much needs to be done to identify and overcome barriers to epilepsy surgery for patients with drug-resistant seizures worldwide.

Counseling about sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP): A global survey of neurologists' opinions.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the opinions and attitudes of neurologists on the counseling about sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) worldwide. METHODS: Practicing neurologists from around the world were invited to participate in an online survey. On February 18th, 2021, we emailed an invitation including a questionnaire (using Google-forms) to the lead neurologists from 50 countries. The survey anonymously collected the demographic data of the participants and answers to the questions about their opinions and attitudes toward counseling about SUDEP. RESULTS: In total, 1123 neurologists from 27 countries participated; 41.5% of the respondents reported they discuss the risk of SUDEP with patients and their care-givers only rarely. Specific subgroups of patients who should especially be told about this condition were considered to be those with poor antiseizure medication (ASM) adherence, frequent tonic-clonic seizures, or with drug-resistant epilepsy. The propensity to tell all patients with epilepsy (PWE) about SUDEP was higher among those with epilepsy fellowship. Having an epilepsy fellowship and working in an academic setting were factors associated with a comfortable discussion about SUDEP. There were significant differences between the world regions. CONCLUSION: Neurologists often do not discuss SUDEP with patients and their care-givers. While the results of this study may not be representative of practitioners in each country, it seems that there is a severe dissociation between the clinical significance of SUDEP and the amount of attention that is devoted to this matter in daily practice by many neurologists around the world.

Complementary and alternative medicine in epilepsy: A global survey of physicians' opinions.

PURPOSE: To investigate the opinions of physicians on the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in patients with epilepsy (PWE) worldwide. METHODS: Online survey addressed to neurologists and psychiatrists from different countries. RESULTS: Totally, 1112 physicians from 25 countries (different world region: Europe, North America, South America, Middle-East, Africa, Former Soviet Union Republics) participated; 804 (72.3%) believed that CAM might be helpful in PWE. The most commonly endorsed CAM included meditation (41%) and yoga (39%). Female sex, psychiatry specialization, and working in North and South America were associated with the belief that CAM is helpful in PWE. Two-hundred and forty five out of 1098 participants (22.3%) used/prescribed CAM to PWE; among them, 174 (71%) people perceived CAM to be less effective and 114 (46.5%) people found CAM to be safer than conventional antiseizure medications (ASMs). The most common reasons to prescribe CAM for PWE were: to satisfy the patient (49.9%), dissatisfaction with the efficacy (35.6%), and dissatisfaction with the adverse effects (31.2%) of conventional therapies. CONCLUSION: Although the evidence supporting the use of CAM for the treatment of epilepsy is extremely sparse, most physicians worldwide believe that it could be integrated with the use of conventional ASMs, at least in some patients. High-quality controlled trials are warranted to provide robust evidence on the usefulness of CAM options in PWE.

Working restrictions and disability benefits eligibility in patients with functional (psychogenic) seizures: An international survey of physicians' opinions.

OBJECTIVES: In this international study, we aimed to investigate the opinions of physicians dealing with patients with functional seizures (FS) worldwide on working restrictions and disability benefits eligibility. METHODS: International online survey of neurologists/mental health professionals from Argentina, Venezuela, Colombia, Italy, France, Iran, Iraq, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Georgia, and Russia. RESULTS: Six hundred and twenty-seven physicians from 12 countries participated in the study. Working as a neurologist was a predictor to think that patients with FS should not be counseled to avoid performing all jobs or professions as long as they have active disease (OR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.68; p < 0.001). Having managed more than 200 patients was associated with the opinion that patients should not be counseled to avoid performing any type of work (OR: 2.17; 95% CI: 1.02 to 4.59; p = 0.043). Working as a psychiatrist/psychologist was associated with the idea that patients with FS should be qualified for disability benefits (OR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.21-3.21; p = 0.006), and receive these benefits lifelong (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.22-0.84; p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: Neurologists and mental health professionals have different attitudes and opinions toward working restrictions and disability benefits for patients with FS. Further studies should investigate the reasons for these differences, and propose solutions to avoid discrimination and unequal access to employment and disability benefits.