Infantile Spasms and Vigabatrin

J. P Osborne,S. W Edwards,E. Hancock,A. L Lux,F. O'Callaghan,T. Johnson,C. R Kennedy,R. W Newton,C. M Verity,S D Lhatoo,J W A S Sander
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.56a
1999-01-01
BMJ
Abstract:Editor—In his letter about the use of vigabatrin in children Appleton reports the consensus guideline from a “paediatric advisory group.”1 The longer version of Appleton’s letter (on the BMJ website) includes the information that “the advisory group [was] supported by an educational grant from Hoechst Marion Roussel,” the manufacturer of vigabatrin, but the letter in the paper journal does not say this. The guideline states that “vigabatrin currently remains the drug of choice for infantile spasms.” Many paediatricians and paediatric neurologists, in both the United Kingdom and North America, would dispute this statement and continue to use tetracosactrin (ACTH) or prednisolone (or prednisone) as first choice. The only published randomised controlled trial comparing vigabatrin and ACTH as first line treatment in infantile spasms showed cessation of seizures in 48% and 74%, respectively, of 42 cases analysed by intention to treat (difference 26% (95% confidence interval−3% to 54%)),2 which seems to exclude a significant treatment advantage for vigabatrin. Side effects (drowsiness, hypotonia, and irritability in the vigabatrin group; irritability and hypertension in the ACTH group) were seen in 13% and 37% respectively (24% (−2% to 50%)). Estimates of side effects are difficult to interpret, especially as hypertension was not clearly defined and visual field defects due to vigabatrin cannot be detected in infants. The United Kingdom infantile spasm study has received approval from a multicentre research ethics committee to study the epidemiology of infantile spasms and to compare the effects of vigabatrin, tetracosactrin, and prednisolone in a randomised clinical trial. Outcomes to be studied include cessation of seizures, improvement in the electroencephalogram, and neurodevelopmental progress by 12-14 months of age. Infants with definite or possible tuberous sclerosis will be excluded from the drug trial as we (the steering committee of the study) believe that vigabatrin is the first choice for treatment of infantile spasms due to tuberous sclerosis.3 Infants with tuberous sclerosis will, however, be included in the epidemiological study. At present, the limited evidence suggests that steroid treatment may be more effective, albeit with a clinically important risk of hypertension. There is also concern about possible unmeasured adverse effects of both steroids and vigabatrin. This leaves most paediatricians and paediatric neurologists in a state of equipoise with respect to these treatments and requires a large randomised trial to provide more precise estimates of the size of treatment effects and adverse effects. The United Kingdom infantile spasm study will be of sufficient size to achieve this, although it will not provide a short term answer with respect to visual fields. Any treatment effects will have to be weighed against emerging data on drug safety.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?