Seizures affect the lives of 10% of the global population and result in epilepsy in 1 to 2% of people around the world. Current knowledge about etiology, diagnosis, and treatments for epilepsy is constantly evolving. As more is learned, appropriate and updated definitions and classification systems for seizures and epilepsy are of the utmost importance. Without proper definitions and classification, many individuals will be improperly diagnosed and incorrectly treated. It is also essential for research purposes to have proper definitions, so that appropriate populations can be identified and studied. Imprecise definitions, failure to use accepted terminology, or inappropriate use of terminology hamper our ability to study and advance the field of epilepsy. This article begins by discussing the pathophysiology and epidemiology of epilepsy, and then covers the accepted contemporary definitions and classifications of seizures and epilepsies.

Status epilepticus is the most severe form of epilepsy, with a high mortality rate and high health care costs. Status epilepticus is divided into four stages: early, established, refractory, and super-refractory. While initial treatment with benzodiazepines has become standard of care for early status epilepticus, treatment after benzodiazepine failure (established status epilepticus (ESE)) is incompletely studied. Effective treatment of ESE is critical as morbidity and mortality increases dramatically the longer convulsive status epilepticus persists. Phenytoin/fosphenytoin, valproic acid, levetiracetam, phenobarbital, and lacosamide are the most frequently prescribed antiseizure medications for treatment of ESE. To date there are no class 1 data to support pharmacologic recommendations of one agent over another. We review each of these medications, their pharmacology, the scientific evidence in support and against each in the available literature, adverse effects and safety profiles, dosing recommendations, and limitations of the available evidence. We also discuss future directions including the established status epilepticus treatment trial (ESETT). Substantial further research is urgently needed to identify these patients (particularly those with non-convulsive status epilepticus), elucidate the most efficacious antiseizure treatment with head-to-head randomized prospective trials, and determine whether this differs for convulsive vs. non-convulsive ESE.

Background: Telemedicine has been used for decades. Despite its many advantages, its uptake and rigorous evaluation of feasibility across neurology’s ambulatory subspecialties has been sparse. However, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted health care systems worldwide to reconsider traditional health care delivery. To safeguard health care workers and patients, many health care systems quickly transitioned to telemedicine, including across neurology subspecialties, providing a new opportunity to evaluate this modality of care. Objective: To evaluate the accelerated implementation of video visits in ambulatory neurology during the COVID-19 pandemic, we used mixed methods to assess adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, and perceptions of potential sustainability. Methods: Video visits were launched rapidly in ambulatory neurology clinics of a large academic medical center. To assess adoption, we analyzed clinician-level scheduling data collected between March 22 and May 16, 2020. We assessed acceptability, appropriateness, and sustainability via a clinician survey (n=48) and semistructured interviews with providers (n=30) completed between March and May 2020. Results: Video visits were adopted rapidly; overall, 65 (98%) clinicians integrated video visits into their workflow within the first 6 implementation weeks and 92% of all visits were conducted via video. Video visits were largely considered acceptable by clinicians, although various technological issues impacted their satisfaction. Video visits were reported to be more convenient for patients, families, and caregivers than in-person visits; however, access to technology, the patient’s technological capacity, and language difficulties were considered barriers. Many clinicians expressed optimism about future utilization of video visits in neurology. They believed that video visits promote continuity of care and can be incorporated into their practice long-term, although several insisted that they can never replace the in-person examination. Conclusions: Video visits are an important addition to clinical care in ambulatory neurology and are anticipated to remain a permanent supplement to in-person visits, promoting patient care continuity, and flexibility for patients and clinicians alike.