Seizures are common in neonates, but there is substantial management variability. The Neonatal Task Force of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) developed evidence‐based recommendations about antiseizure medication (ASM) management in neonates in accordance with ILAE standards. Six priority questions were formulated, a systematic literature review and meta‐analysis were performed, and results were reported following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses) 2020 standards. Bias was evaluated using the Cochrane tool and risk of Bias in non‐randomised studies ‐ of interventions (ROBINS‐I), and quality of evidence was evaluated using grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE). If insufficient evidence was available, then expert opinion was sought using Delphi consensus methodology. The strength of recommendations was defined according to the ILAE Clinical Practice Guidelines development tool. There were six main recommendations. First, phenobarbital should be the first‐line ASM (evidence‐based recommendation) regardless of etiology (expert agreement), unless channelopathy is likely the cause for seizures (e.g., due to family history), in which case phenytoin or carbamazepine should be used. Second, among neonates with seizures not responding to first‐line ASM, phenytoin, levetiracetam, midazolam, or lidocaine may be used as a second‐line ASM (expert agreement). In neonates with cardiac disorders, levetiracetam may be the preferred second‐line ASM (expert agreement). Third, following cessation of acute provoked seizures without evidence for neonatal‐onset epilepsy, ASMs should be discontinued before discharge home, regardless of magnetic resonance imaging or electroencephalographic findings (expert agreement). Fourth, therapeutic hypothermia may reduce seizure burden in neonates with hypoxic–ischemic encephalopathy (evidence‐based recommendation). Fifth, treating neonatal seizures (including electrographic‐only seizures) to achieve a lower seizure burden may be associated with improved outcome (expert agreement). Sixth, a trial of pyridoxine may be attempted in neonates presenting with clinical features of vitamin B6‐dependent epilepsy and seizures unresponsive to second‐line ASM (expert agreement). Additional considerations include a standardized pathway for the management of neonatal seizures in each neonatal unit and informing parents/guardians about the diagnosis of seizures and initial treatment options.

Pediatric neurology is the medical subspecialty responsible for diagnosing and managing diseases and disorders of the nervous system in childhood and adolescence. In many, but not all, regions of the world the discipline of pediatric neurology is recognized as a specialty or subspecialty of either Neurology or Pediatrics. Significant knowledge and competencies in this area are necessary to be effective in clinical practice. The need for this is driven by the high burden of disease from neurological conditions in children and the impact on their families. As the first part of a multi-staged project under the auspices of the International Child Neurology Association, in collaboration with key stakeholders, a survey was undertaken to establish which countries have practicing child neurologists. For those countries that have child neurologists, the survey established the number of practitioners, and which countries have access to in-country child neurology training. Responses were obtained from 177 countries. Worldwide there is a median of 0.07 and mean of 0.39 child neurologists per 100 000 population. The greatest deficits in child neurology specialists and access to training were evident in countries which fell under the world bank rating of low income country status (range of 0 to 0.008 child neurologists per 100 000 population). Seventy-three percent of low income countries lack access to child neurologists: the majority are in the African and South-East Asia Regions. For the population of 1.37 billion in the continent of Africa there were 324 child neurologists, equating to median 0.01 per 100 000 population in comparison to a median of 0.59 child neurologists per 100 000 across high income countries. Ninety-four countries had capacity to support in-country pediatric neurology training. Worldwide there are inadequate numbers of child neurologists and great need for increased training capacity.

In this paper, we present a convolutional gated recurrent neural network (CGRNN) to predict epileptic seizures based on features extracted from EEG data that represent the temporal aspect and the frequency aspect of the signal. Using a dataset collected in the Children’s Hospital of Boston, CGRNN can predict epileptic seizures between 35 min and 5 min in advance. Our experimental results indicate that the performance of CGRNN varies between patients. We achieve an average sensitivity of 89% and a mean accuracy of 75.6% for the patients in the data set, with a mean False Positive Rate (FPR) of 1.6 per hour.

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.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic leads to disruptions of health services worldwide. To evaluate the particular impact on neurological services a rapid review was conducted. Methods: Studies reporting the provision of neurological services during the pandemic and/or adopted mitigation strategies were included in this review. PubMed and World Health Organization’s (WHO) COVID-19 database were searched. Data extraction followed categories used by WHO COVID-19 pulse surveys and operational guidelines on maintaining essential health services during COVID-19. Findings: The search yielded 1101 articles, of which 369 fulfilled eligibility criteria, describing data from 210,419 participants, being adults (81%), children (11.4%) or both (7.3%). Included articles reported data from 105 countries and territories covering all WHO regions and World Bank income levels (low income: 1.9%, lower middle: 24.7%, upper middle: 29.5% and high income; 44.8%). Cross-sectoral services for neurological disorders were most frequently disrupted (62.9%), followed by emergency/acute care (47.1%). The degree of disruption was at least moderate for 75% of studies. Travel restrictions due to lockdowns (81.7%) and regulatory closure of services (65.4%) were the most commonly reported causes of disruption. Authors most frequently described telemedicine (82.1%) and novel dispensing approaches for medicines (51.8%) as mitigation strategies. Evidence for the effectiveness of these measures is largely missing. Interpretation: The COVID-19 pandemic affects all aspects of neurological care. Given the worldwide prevalence of neurological disorders and the potential long-term neurological consequences of COVID-19, service disruptions are devastating. Different strategies such as telemedicine might mitigate the negative effects of the pandemic, but their efficacy and acceptability remain to be seen.