Towards a further understanding of childhood dystonia

E. Monbaliu,P. Cock,H. Feys

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12109

2013-06-01

Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology

Abstract:syndrome). What other findings have emerged in this paper that might not have been expected? One finding treated at some length is the difference in prescription habits between physicians in USA and the rest of the world. While of interest to pharmaceutical manufacturers, what does it teach clinicians? The reasons for differences in prescription habits are multiple, including pricing by manufacturers, marketing, the published evidence of effectiveness versus toxicity (‘sideeffects’), the weight put on this balance between efficacy and toxicity, the nature of the health care system, and the role of local experts as advocates of good prescribing practice. The data presented here can only make sense when viewed as one detail of a much bigger picture. An important topic addressed helpfully is the difficulty of distinguishing between paroxysmal events of epileptic and non-epileptic origin. It can indeed be very difficult to distinguish between these episodes, which may co-exist in the same patient. The category of ‘drug-resistant epilepsy’ may contain individuals in whom epileptic events exist alongside others, such as primary autonomic dysfunction or secondary responses to the pain of gastro-oesophageal reflux. The failure to distinguish these events will often lead to an inappropriate regimen of high-dose polypharmacy with anticonvulsant drugs: the epilepsy may be under adequate control, but non-epileptic episodes are treated as if they were epileptic in origin. This emphasizes the importance of tackling this problem more thoroughly than the Rett research community has achieved thus far. In summary, then, this paper represents a real achievement. It enhances our understanding of epilepsy in Rett syndrome. However, the approach adopted here may not be a model for the most appropriate investigations to pursue in the future. Further studies of genotype-phenotype correlations in atypical and variant forms of Rett syndrome may indeed be helpful but larger studies of MECP2associated Rett syndrome appear unlikely to add much further value and databases of national scope may be better able to recruit appropriate patients to clinical trials. Finally, I should point out one slightly misleading statement in the paper by Bao et al. It is suggested that children affected by a Rett-like disorder but with an onset of seizures in the first month or two may have ‘Rett syndrome’. In fact, these infants are unlikely to show the apparently normal early development followed by regression that is essential for the clinical diagnosis of Rett syndrome; they are much more likely to have early seizures in association with the clinically distinct disorder associated with mutations in CDKL5, as occurred in the paper cited by the authors.