Related Experiment Videos
Randomised controlled trial to assess acceptability of phenobarbital for childhood epilepsy in rural India
1Neurosciences Unit, University College London, UK. d.pal@ucl.ac.uk
Insights
Phenobarbital is an acceptable and effective first-line treatment for childhood epilepsy in developing countries, with no significant behavioral side effects compared to phenytoin. This study supports its use in rural Indian settings.
Area of Science:
- Pediatric Neurology
- Pharmacology
- Global Health
Background:
- Childhood epilepsy treatment is debated due to phenobarbital's potential behavioral side effects.
- The applicability of existing research to developing countries remains unclear.
- A randomized comparison was conducted to assess phenobarbital's suitability for childhood epilepsy in rural India.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the acceptability and efficacy of phenobarbital as a monotherapy for childhood epilepsy.
- To compare phenobarbital with phenytoin in terms of behavioral side effects and treatment effectiveness.
Main Methods:
- A randomized controlled trial involving 94 children (aged 2-18 years) with epilepsy in rural India.
- Children were treated with either phenobarbital or phenytoin for 12 months.
- Behavioral side effects were assessed using validated rating scales (Conners, BSQ); efficacy was measured by seizure frequency.
Main Results:
- No significant difference in behavioral side effect scores between phenobarbital and phenytoin groups.
- Phenobarbital showed no excess parental reports of side effects.
- Efficacy was comparable between the two drugs, with no significant difference in time to first seizure.
Conclusions:
- Phenobarbital is an acceptable and effective first-line treatment for childhood epilepsy in developing country settings.
- The study provides evidence supporting the use of phenobarbital in rural areas of developing nations.
Background:
The use of phenobarbital for childhood epilepsy is controversial because of reported behavioural side-effects; however, whether this research can validly be extrapolated to developing countries is not clear. We undertook a randomised comparison of phenobarbital and phenytoin to assess the acceptability and efficacy of phenobarbital as monotherapy for childhood epilepsy in rural India.
Methods:
Between August, 1995, and February, 1996, 109 unselected children aged 2-18 years with partial and generalised tonic-clonic epilepsy were identified by population screening. 15 families declined to take part. 94 children were randomly allocated treatment with phenobarbital (1.5 mg/kg daily for 2 weeks; maintenance dose 3.0 mg/kg daily; n = 47) or phenytoin (2.5 mg/kg daily then 5.0 mg/kg daily; n = 47). Children were followed up for 12 months. The primary outcome measure was the frequency of behavioural side-effects; behaviour was assessed by the Conners parent rating scale for children aged 6 years and older, and by the preschool behaviour screening questionnaire (BSQ) for those aged 2-5 years, at 12 months or at withdrawal from treatment. Analysis was by intention to treat.
Findings:
The mean log-transformed scores on the behaviour rating scales did not differ significantly between the phenobarbital and phenytoin groups (Conners 2.64 [SD 0.71] vs 2.65 [0.89], p = 0.97; n = 32 in each group: BSQ 2.12 [1.31] vs 2.18 [1.02], p = 0.94; n = 4 vs 3). The odds ratio for behavioural problems (phenobarbital vs phenytoin) was 0.51 (95% CI 0.16-1.59). There was no excess in parental reports of side-effects for phenobarbital. We found no difference in efficacy between the study drugs (adjusted hazard ratio for time to first seizure from randomisation 0.97 [0.28-3.30]).
Interpretation:
This evidence supports the acceptability of phenobarbital as a first-line drug for childhood epilepsy in rural settings in developing countries.