Knupp Kelly G, Leister Erin, Coryell Jason, Nickels Katherine C, Ryan Nicole, Juarez-Colunga Elizabeth, Gaillard William D, Mytinger John R, Berg Anne T, Millichap John, Nordli Douglas R, Joshi Sucheta, Shellhaas Renée A, Loddenkemper Tobias, Dlugos Dennis, Wirrell Elaine, Sullivan Joseph, Hartman Adam L, Kossoff Eric H, Grinspan Zachary M, Hamikawa Lorie
Department of Pediatrics and Neurology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, U.S.A.
Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, U.S.A.
Epilepsia. 2016 Nov;57(11):1834-1842. doi: 10.1111/epi.13557. Epub 2016 Sep 12.
Infantile spasms (IS) represent a severe epileptic encephalopathy presenting in the first 2 years of life. Recommended first-line therapies (hormonal therapy or vigabatrin) often fail. We evaluated response to second treatment for IS in children in whom the initial therapy failed to produce both clinical remission and electrographic resolution of hypsarhythmia and whether time to treatment was related to outcome.
The National Infantile Spasms Consortium established a multicenter, prospective database enrolling infants with new diagnosis of IS. Children were considered nonresponders to first treatment if there was no clinical remission or persistence of hypsarhythmia. Treatment was evaluated as hormonal therapy (adrenocorticotropic hormone [ACTH] or oral corticosteroids), vigabatrin, or "other." Standard treatments (hormonal and vigabatrin) were compared to all other nonstandard treatments. We compared response rates using chi-square tests and multivariable logistic regression models.
One hundred eighteen infants were included from 19 centers. Overall response rate to a second treatment was 37% (n = 44). Children who received standard medications with differing mechanisms for first and second treatment had higher response rates than other sequences (27/49 [55%] vs. 17/69 [25%], p < 0.001). Children receiving first treatment within 4 weeks of IS onset had a higher response rate to second treatment than those initially treated later (36/82 [44%] vs. 8/34 [24%], p = 0.040).
Greater than one third of children with IS will respond to a second medication. Choosing a standard medication (ACTH, oral corticosteroids, or vigabatrin) that has a different mechanism of action appears to be more effective. Rapid initial treatment increases the likelihood of response to the second treatment.
婴儿痉挛症(IS)是一种在生命的头两年出现的严重癫痫性脑病。推荐的一线治疗方法(激素治疗或氨己烯酸)常常失败。我们评估了初始治疗未能使临床缓解且高幅失律在脑电图上消失的儿童对IS的二线治疗的反应,以及治疗时间与预后是否相关。
国家婴儿痉挛症联盟建立了一个多中心前瞻性数据库,纳入新诊断为IS的婴儿。如果没有临床缓解或高幅失律持续存在,则认为儿童对初始治疗无反应。治疗评估为激素治疗(促肾上腺皮质激素[ACTH]或口服皮质类固醇)、氨己烯酸或“其他”。将标准治疗(激素和氨己烯酸)与所有其他非标准治疗进行比较。我们使用卡方检验和多变量逻辑回归模型比较反应率。
来自19个中心的118名婴儿被纳入研究。二线治疗的总体反应率为37%(n = 44)。首次和第二次治疗机制不同的接受标准药物治疗的儿童比其他治疗顺序的儿童有更高的反应率(27/49 [55%] 对17/69 [25%],p < 0.001)。在IS发作4周内接受首次治疗的儿童对二线治疗的反应率高于最初治疗较晚的儿童(36/82 [44%] 对8/34 [24%],p = 0.040)。
超过三分之一的IS患儿对二线药物治疗有反应。选择作用机制不同的标准药物(ACTH、口服皮质类固醇或氨己烯酸)似乎更有效。快速开始初始治疗可增加对二线治疗有反应的可能性。