PURPOSE: In Sturge-Weber disease, motor and cognitive defects are supposed to result mostly from severe epilepsy. They might, therefore be partly prevented by prophylactic antiepileptic drug treatment. This condition constitutes a possible model for the study of prophylactic drug treatment in severe epilepsy. In the present study, we compared the outcome of patients treated prospectively with phenobarbitone before the first seizure, with those referred following the first seizure, in order to identify the issues related to the evaluation of prophylactic treatment of severe epilepsy. METHODS: Motor and cognitive outcome were compared in patients treated prophylactically with phenobarbitone (16 cases) and in those treated following the first seizures (21 cases). RESULTS: Whereas the incidence of motor deficit was similar in both groups (44 vs. 52%), that of mental retardation was lower in the group treated prophylactically (76.2 vs. 43.7%, P< 0.05). The major methodological issues encountered included the small number of patients identified at birth that could be included in the study, the need for randomization taking into account the size of the angioma, and the choice of the prophylactic medication, including the occurrence of epilepsy together with the course of motor and cognitive functions among the endpoints. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic anti-epileptic drug treatment is worth considering for Sturge-Weber disease, but a randomized prospective study is necessary to determine this. It should be multicentric, take in account the size of the angioma, and decide what the most appropriate medication should be. Copyright 2002 BEA Trading Ltd. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: In Sturge-Weber disease, motor and cognitive defects are supposed to result mostly from severe epilepsy. They might, therefore be partly prevented by prophylactic antiepileptic drug treatment. This condition constitutes a possible model for the study of prophylactic drug treatment in severe epilepsy. In the present study, we compared the outcome of patients treated prospectively with phenobarbitone before the first seizure, with those referred following the first seizure, in order to identify the issues related to the evaluation of prophylactic treatment of severe epilepsy. METHODS: Motor and cognitive outcome were compared in patients treated prophylactically with phenobarbitone (16 cases) and in those treated following the first seizures (21 cases). RESULTS: Whereas the incidence of motor deficit was similar in both groups (44 vs. 52%), that of mental retardation was lower in the group treated prophylactically (76.2 vs. 43.7%, P< 0.05). The major methodological issues encountered included the small number of patients identified at birth that could be included in the study, the need for randomization taking into account the size of the angioma, and the choice of the prophylactic medication, including the occurrence of epilepsy together with the course of motor and cognitive functions among the endpoints. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic anti-epileptic drug treatment is worth considering for Sturge-Weber disease, but a randomized prospective study is necessary to determine this. It should be multicentric, take in account the size of the angioma, and decide what the most appropriate medication should be. Copyright 2002 BEA Trading Ltd. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Alejandro J De la Torre; Aimee F Luat; Csaba Juhász; Mai Lan Ho; Davis P Argersinger; Kara M Cavuoto; Mabel Enriquez-Algeciras; Stephanie Tikkanen; Paula North; Craig N Burkhart; Harry T Chugani; Karen L Ball; Anna Lecticia Pinto; Jeffrey A Loeb Journal: Pediatr Neurol Date: 2018-04-18 Impact factor: 3.372
Authors: Warren Lo; Douglas A Marchuk; Karen L Ball; Csaba Juhász; Lori C Jordan; Joshua B Ewen; Anne Comi Journal: Dev Med Child Neurol Date: 2011-12-23 Impact factor: 5.449
Authors: Alyssa M Day; Adrienne M Hammill; Csaba Juhász; Anna L Pinto; E Steve Roach; Charles E McCulloch; Anne M Comi Journal: Pediatr Neurol Date: 2018-11-24 Impact factor: 3.372
Authors: Anne M Comi; Mustafa Sahin; Adrienne Hammill; Emma H Kaplan; Csaba Juhász; Paula North; Karen L Ball; Alex V Levin; Bernard Cohen; Jill Morris; Warren Lo; E Steve Roach Journal: Pediatr Neurol Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 3.372
Authors: Joshua B Ewen; Eric H Kossoff; Nathan E Crone; Doris D M Lin; Balaji M Lakshmanan; Lisa M Ferenc; Anne M Comi Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2009-07-08 Impact factor: 3.708