Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: One of the objectives of the Intersectoral Global Action Plan on epilepsy and other neurological disorders for 2022 to 2031 is to ensure at least 80% of people with epilepsy (PWE) will have access to appropriate, affordable, and safe antiseizure medications (ASMs) by 2031. However, ASM affordability is a significant issue in low‐ and middle‐income countries, preventing PWE from accessing optimal treatment. This study aimed to determine the affordability of the newer (second and third generation) ASMs in resource‐limited countries in Asia. Methods: We conducted a cross‐sectional survey by contacting country representatives in lower‐middle‐income countries (LMICs) in Asia, including Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic (PDR), Myanmar, Philippines, Vietnam, India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, and the upper‐middle‐income country Malaysia, from March 2022 to April 2022. The affordability of each ASM was calculated by dividing the 30‐day ASM cost by the daily wage of the lowest paid unskilled laborers. Treatment costing 1 day's wage or less for a 30‐day supply of chronic disease is considered affordable. Results: Eight LMICs and one upper‐middle‐income country were included in this study. Lao PDR had no newer ASM, and Vietnam had only three newer ASMs. The most frequently available ASMs were levetiracetam, topiramate, and lamotrigine, and the least frequently available was lacosamide. The majority of the newer ASMs were unaffordable, with the median number of days' wages for a 30‐day supply ranging from 5.6 to 14.8 days. Significance: All new generation ASMs, whether original or generic brands, were unaffordable in most Asian LMICs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]