Purpose The purpose of the study was to describe epileptologists' opinion on the increased use of remote systems implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic across clinics, education, and scientific meetings activities. Methods Between April and May 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional, electronic survey on remote systems use before and during the COVID-19 pandemic through the European reference center for rare and complex epilepsies (EpiCARE) network, the International and the French Leagues Against Epilepsy, and the International and the French Child Neurology Associations. After descriptive statistical analysis, we compared the results of France, China, and Italy. Results One hundred and seventy-two respondents from 35 countries completed the survey. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 63.4% had experienced remote systems for clinical care. During the pandemic, the use of remote clinics, either institutional or personal, significantly increased (p < 10 −4 ). Eighty-three percent used remote systems with video, either institutional (75%) or personal (25%). During the pandemic, 84.6% of respondents involved in academic activities transformed their courses to online teaching. From February to July 2020, few scientific meetings relevant to epileptologists and routinely attended was adapted to virtual meeting (median: 1 [25th–75th percentile: 0–2]). Responders were quite satisfied with remote systems in all three activity domains. Interestingly, before the COVID-19 pandemic, remote systems were significantly more frequently used in China for clinical activity compared with France or Italy. This difference became less marked during the pandemic. Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically altered how academic epileptologists carry out their core missions of clinical care, medical education, and scientific discovery and dissemination. Close attention to the impact of these changes is merited.

Objective: To assess adverse events (AEs) and efficacy of add-on cannabidiol (CBD) with a slower titration protocol in pediatric clinical practice. Methods: We conducted a prospective, open-label, multicenter study in seven French reference centers for rare epilepsies. Patients had slow titration to reach a target dose of 10 mg/kg/day within at least 1 month and then gradually increased to a maximum dose of 20 mg/kg/day. We analyzed AEs and efficacy at M1 (month 1), M2, and M6, comparing two sets of subgroups: Dravet syndrome (DS) vs. Lennox-Gastaut (LGS) and patients with clobazam (CLB+) vs. patients without (CLB−). Results: One hundred and twenty-five patients were enrolled (62 LGS, 48 DS, 5 Tuberous sclerosis, and 10 other etiologies). Median concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) was three (25th percentile: 3, 75th percentile: 4). Patients received a dose of 10 (10–12), 14 (10–20), and 15.5 mg/kg/day (10–20) at M1, M2, and M6, respectively. Twenty-six patients discontinued CBD, 19 due to lack of efficacy, 2 due to AEs, 4 for both, and 1 had a sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. AEs were reported in 61 patients (48.8%), mainly somnolence ( n = 26), asthenia ( n = 20), and behavior disorders ( n = 16). Abnormal transaminases (≥3 times) were reported in 11 patients receiving both valproate and clobazam. AEs were significantly higher at M2 ( p = 0.03) and increased with the number of AEDs ( p = 0.03). At M6, total seizure frequency change from baseline was −41% ± 37.5% (mean ± standard deviation), and 28 patients (37.8%) had a reduction ≥50%. AE and efficacy did not differ between DS vs. LGS and CLB+ vs. CLB– patients. Significance: A slower titration of CBD dose delivered better tolerance with comparable efficacy to previous trials. Concomitant CLB did not increase efficacy rates but in a few cases increased AEs. This slow titration scheme should help guide clinicians prescribing CBD and allow patients to benefit from its potential efficacy.