Harini, Chellamani

Abstract Objective This study was undertaken to evaluate the response to second treatments for infantile epileptic spasms syndrome (IESS). Methods Infants aged 2–24 months with IESS were prospectively enrolled in the National Infantile Spasms Cohort study at 21 pediatric epilepsy centers in the United States from 2012 to 2018. We analyzed data from infants who initially received standard treatment (hormonal therapy [adrenocorticotropic hormone, high‐dose prednisolone] or vigabatrin), had continued or recurring epileptic spasms, and received a second treatment. We excluded those with tuberous sclerosis. Treatment groups included hormonal therapy followed by vigabatrin (reference), hormonal‐to‐hormonal, hormonal‐to‐nonstandard, vigabatrin‐to‐hormonal, and vigabatrin‐to‐nonstandard. Nonstandard treatments included other antiseizure medications and dietary therapy. Treatment groups were tested for differences in 3‐month clinical remission using a binary logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs). Results There were 153 infants with IESS who received second treatments. The highest rates of 3‐month remission were among infants in the hormonal‐to‐vigabatrin (22/65, 34%) and vigabatrin‐to‐hormonal (9/26, 35%) groups, followed by vigabatrin‐to‐nonstandard (3/10, 30%), hormonal‐to‐hormonal (4/22, 18%), and hormonal‐to‐nonstandard (1/30, 3.3%). Compared to the hormonal‐to‐vigabatrin group (reference), fewer infants had remission in the hormonal‐to‐nonstandard group (OR = .07, 95% confidence interval [CI] = .01–.53), and there was a trend toward fewer infants in the hormonal‐to‐hormonal group (OR = .43, 95% CI = .13–1.4, p = .17). Following initial hormonal treatment, the number needed to treat was three infants for one additional infant to have remission when treated with vigabatrin compared to nonstandard therapy as the second treatment. Significance This updated analysis with an expanded sample size provided power for additional subgroup analysis. Overall response rates were low, and at best only one third had remission after second treatment. Results support a clinical strategy of switching mechanism of action when selecting a second medication for epileptic spasms (i.e., use vigabatrin after hormonal therapy, or hormonal therapy after vigabatrin). Our findings also support the use of standard over nonstandard therapies.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine whether selection of treatment for children with infantile spasms (IS) varies by race/ethnicity.MethodsThe prospective US National Infantile Spasms Consortium database includes children with IS treated from 2012 to 2018. We examined the relationship between race/ethnicity and receipt of standard IS therapy (prednisolone, adrenocorticotropic hormone, vigabatrin), adjusting for demographic and clinical variables using logistic regression. Our primary outcome was treatment course, which considered therapy prescribed for the first and, when needed, the second IS treatment together.ResultsOf 555 children, 324 (58%) were non‐Hispanic white, 55 (10%) non‐Hispanic Black, 24 (4%) non‐Hispanic Asian, 80 (14%) Hispanic, and 72 (13%) other/unknown. Most (398, 72%) received a standard treatment course. Insurance type, geographic location, history of prematurity, prior seizures, developmental delay or regression, abnormal head circumference, hypsarrhythmia, and IS etiologies were associated with standard therapy. In adjusted models, non‐Hispanic Black children had lower odds of receiving a standard treatment course compared with non‐Hispanic white children (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20–0.89; p = 0.02). Adjusted models also showed that children with public (vs. private) insurance had lower odds of receiving standard therapy for treatment 1 (OR, 0.42; CI, 0.21–0.84; p = 0.01).InterpretationNon‐Hispanic Black children were more often treated with non‐standard IS therapies than non‐Hispanic white children. Likewise, children with public (vs. private) insurance were less likely to receive standard therapies. Investigating drivers of inequities, and understanding the impact of racism on treatment decisions, are critical next steps to improve care for patients with IS. ANN NEUROL 2022;92:32–44

Objective: In a randomized trial, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of cosyntropin injectable suspension, 1 mg/mL, compared to vigabatrin for infantile spasms syndrome. An additional arm was included to assess the efficacy of combination therapy (cosyntropin and vigabatrin) compared with cosyntropin monotherapy. Methods: Children (2 months to 2 years) with new-onset infantile spasms syndrome and hypsarhythmia were randomized into 3 arms: cosyntropin, vigabatrin, and cosyntropin and vigabatrin combined. Daily seizures and adverse events were recorded, and EEG was repeated at day 14 to assess for resolution of hypsarhythmia. The primary outcome measure was the composite of resolution of hypsarhythmia and absence of clinical spasms at day 14. Fisher exact test was used to compare outcomes. Results: 37 children were enrolled and 34 were included in the final efficacy analysis (1 withdrew prior to treatment and 2 did not return seizure diaries). Resolution of both hypsarhythmia and clinical spasms was achieved in in 9 of 12 participants (75%) treated with cosyntropin, 1/9 (11%) vigabatrin, and 5/13 (38%) cosyntropin and vigabatrin combined. The primary comparison of cosyntropin versus vigabatrin was significant (64% [95% confidence interval 21, 82], P < .01). Adverse events were reported in all 3 treatment arms: 31 (86%) had an adverse event, 7 (19%) had a serious adverse event, and 15 (42%) had an adverse event of special interest with no difference between treatment arms. Significance: This randomized trial was underpowered because of incomplete enrollment, yet it demonstrated that cosyntropin was more effective for short-term outcomes than vigabatrin as initial treatment for infantile spasms.

Circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic have mandated a change to standard management of infantile spasms. On April 6, 2020, the Child Neurology Society issued an online statement of immediate recommendations to streamline diagnosis and treatment of infantile spasms with utilization of telemedicine, outpatient studies, and selection of first-line oral therapies as initial treatment. The rationale for the recommendations and specific guidance including follow-up assessment are provided in this manuscript. These recommendations are indicated as enduring if intended to outlast the pandemic, and limited if intended only for the pandemic health care crisis but may be applicable to future disruptions of health care delivery.