4.5 Article

Infantile spasms: A U.S. consensus report

Journal

EPILEPSIA
Volume 51, Issue 10, Pages 2175-2189

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2010.02657.x

Keywords

West syndrome; Encephalopathic epilepsy; Adrenocorticotropic hormone; Vigabatrin; Corticosteroids; Infantile spasms; Treatment

Funding

  1. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Union City, CA
  2. Lundbeck Incorporated, Deerfield IL

Ask authors/readers for more resources

P>The diagnosis, evaluation, and management of infantile spasms (IS) continue to pose significant challenges to the treating physician. Although an evidence-based practice guideline with full literature review was published in 2004, diversity in IS evaluation and treatment remains and highlights the need for further consensus to optimize outcomes in IS. For this purpose, a working group committed to the diagnosis, treatment, and establishment of a continuum of care for patients with IS and their families-the Infantile Spasms Working Group (ISWG)-was convened. The ISWG participated in a workshop for which the key objectives were to review the state of our understanding of IS, assess the scientific evidence regarding efficacy of currently available therapeutic options, and arrive at a consensus on protocols for diagnostic workup and management of IS that can serve as a guide to help specialists and general pediatricians optimally manage infants with IS. The overall goal of the workshop was to improve IS outcomes by assisting treating physicians with early recognition and diagnosis of IS, initiation of short duration therapy with a first-line treatment, timely electroencephalography (EEG) evaluation of treatment to evaluate effectiveness, and, if indicated, prompt treatment modification. Differences of opinion among ISWG members occurred in areas where data were lacking; however, this article represents a consensus of the U.S. approach to the diagnostic evaluation and treatment of IS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available