Kapur, Jaideep

Numerous factors including social determinants of health, knowledge gaps, economic challenges, workforce limitations, and health system deficiencies are associated with significant disparities in access to health care services and health outcomes for people with epilepsy (PWE). The American Epilepsy Society (AES) and the International League Against Epilepsy—North America (ILAE-NA) established a joint task force to explore and develop recommendations to address health care disparities experienced by PWE. The task force gathered foundational knowledge through meetings, public and patient organization comments and discussions to develop consensus recommendations. We enumerate the recommendations and discuss the rationale behind them to reduce disparities in epilepsy care through comprehensive research, inclusive clinical practices, robust advocacy, and targeted educational initiatives. While our recommendations are focused on the United States, we acknowledge that similar barriers and limitations exist for PWE globally and that these also need to be addressed within their local domains and with attention to unique factors therewithin.

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.