4.7 Article

IQ at 6 years after in utero exposure to antiepileptic drugs A controlled cohort study

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 84, 期 4, 页码 382-390

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000001182

关键词

-

资金

  1. Epilepsy Research UK [RB219738]
  2. Sanofi-Aventis
  3. US NIH [2R01 NS038455]
  4. UK National Institute of Health Research through the Manchester Biomedical Research Centre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective:To delineate the risk to child IQ associated with frequently prescribed antiepileptic drugs.Methods:Children born to women with epilepsy (n = 243) and women without epilepsy (n = 287) were recruited during pregnancy and followed prospectively. Of these, 408 were blindly assessed at 6 years of age. Maternal and child demographics were collected and entered into statistical models.Results:The adjusted mean IQ was 9.7 points lower (95% confidence interval [CI] -4.9 to -14.6; p < 0.001) for children exposed to high-dose (>800 mg daily) valproate, with a similar significant effect observed for the verbal, nonverbal, and spatial subscales. Children exposed to high-dose valproate had an 8-fold increased need of educational intervention relative to control children (adjusted relative risk, 95% CI 8.0, 2.5-19.7; p < 0.001). Valproate at doses <800 mg daily was not associated with reduced IQ, but was associated with impaired verbal abilities (-5.6, 95% CI -11.1 to -0.1; p = 0.04) and a 6-fold increase in educational intervention (95% CI 1.4-18.0; p = 0.01). In utero exposure to carbamazepine or lamotrigine did not have a significant effect on IQ, but carbamazepine was associated with reduced verbal abilities (-4.2, 95% CI -0.6 to -7.8; p = 0.02) and increased frequency of IQ <85.Conclusions:Consistent with data from younger cohorts, school-aged children exposed to valproate at maternal doses more than 800 mg daily continue to experience significantly poorer cognitive development than control children or children exposed to lamotrigine and carbamazepine.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据