Short-term outcome of intravenous methylprednisolone pulse therapy versus oral prednisolone in patients with epileptic spasms

Abstract

Abstract Background Infantile spasm (IS) is an age-specific epileptic disorder of early infancy that typically presents with epileptic spasms occurring in clusters. International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) also recommends the term “IS syndrome” for clustered spasms occurring during infancy (~ 1 year, rarely after 2 years of age) accompanied by electroencephalography (EEG) hypsarrhythmia. Older clinical studies comparing efficacy of adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) and corticosteroids preferred ACTH, but recent studies did not observe a significant difference between both nor showed better efficacy of oral prednisolone compared to intramuscular synthetic one. Participants were 53 patients with epileptic spasms divided into two groups: 26 patients treated by intravenous methylprednisolone (group A) and 27 treated by oral prednisolone (group B). Both groups were matched in age, sex, and age of spasm onset. The outcome measures were spasms cessation at 7 and 14 days and recurrence at 6 weeks after tapering, EEG improvement at 2 and 6 weeks, and frequency of side effects. Results We found that both groups had similar results regarding frequency of children achieving spasms cessation at day 7 and day 14 (53.8% vs 51.9% and 38.5% vs 40.7%, p = 1.000 each), respectively. After drug tapering, there was insignificant difference between both groups regarding recurrence of spasm at 6 weeks (14.8% vs 11.5%, p = 1.000) and EEG improvement at 2 weeks (42.3% vs 33.3%, p = 0.577) with nearly similar improvement in both groups at 6 weeks (46.2% vs 48.1%, p = 1.000). With regard to adverse effects of both therapies, no difference observed between both groups. Conclusions No significant difference was found between oral prednisolone and intravenous methylprednisolone in treatment of epileptic spasm regarding short-term outcomes. The only advantage of intravenous therapy is decreased time to get response and the only advantage of oral therapy is its applicability at home without hospitalization. Further studies are warranted to explore the long-term outcomes.