Galanopoulou, Aristea

Abstract 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.

AbstractEpilepsy is a heterogeneous condition with disparate etiologies and phenotypic and genotypic characteristics. Clinical and research aspects are accordingly varied, ranging from epidemiological to molecular, spanning clinical trials and outcomes, gene and drug discovery, imaging, electroencephalography, pathology, epilepsy surgery, digital technologies, and numerous others. Epilepsy data are collected in the terabytes and petabytes, pushing the limits of current capabilities. Modern computing firepower and advances in machine and deep learning, pioneered in other diseases, open up exciting possibilities for epilepsy too. However, without carefully designed approaches to acquiring, standardizing, curating, and making available such data, there is a risk of failure. Thus, careful construction of relevant ontologies, with intimate stakeholder inputs, provides the requisite scaffolding for more ambitious big data undertakings, such as an epilepsy data commons. In this review, we assess the clinical and research epilepsy landscapes in the big data arena, current challenges, and future directions, and make the case for a systematic approach to epilepsy big data.