Tiagabine in anxiety disorders

GABA has been implicated in both the aetiology and treatment of anxiety. Tiagabine is currently the only selective GABA reuptake inhibitor available in US markets; it exerts its action via GAT-1 transporter blockade presynaptically, facilitating GABA neurotransmission. Preclinical studies and current human studies suggest tiagabine possesses anxiolytic properties. The anxiolytic properties of tiagabine have also been suggested in a number of case series, open-label studies and placebo-controlled studies in patients with different anxiety disorders. Throughout these studies, tiagabine has been reasonably tolerated; the most commonly reported adverse events include dizziness, headache and nausea. Tiagabine may be a useful addition to currently available drugs for anxiety; however, the data from small open-label investigations remain to be confirmed in larger controlled studies.

Treatment Strategies for Myoclonic Seizures and Epilepsy Syndromes with Myoclonic Seizures

Despite the availability of numerous treatment options, the diagnosis and treatment of myoclonic seizures continue to be challenging. Based on clinical experience, valproate and benzodiazepines have historically been used to treat myoclonic seizures. However, many more treatment options exist today, and the clinician must match the appropriate treatment with the patient's epilepsy syndrome and its underlying etiology. Comorbidities and other medications must also be considered when making decisions regarding treatment. Rarely, some antiepileptic drugs may exacerbate myoclonic seizures. Most epileptic myoclonus can be treated pharmacologically, but some cases respond better to surgery, the ketogenic diet, or vagus nerve stimulation. Because myoclonic seizures can be difficult to treat, clinicians should be flexible in their approach and tailor therapy to each patient.

Visual field defects and other ophthalmological disturbances associated with vigabatrin

Vigabatrin has been an important anticonvulsant drug for over 10 years with a reputation for high efficacy and excellent tolerability. However, since 1997, there have been over 25 reports in the literature of visual field defects attributable to the use of this agent. Most are case reports and many have only been reported as abstracts or posters or as letters or short communications. Only a small number of papers give details of patient characteristics. Typically, case reports detail ophthalmological tests such as visual acuity, funduscopic examination, integrity of colour vision, and the nature of the field cut. Many also include various electrophysiological tests which were performed in an attempt to further describe the nature of the visual changes. In order to shed light on the mechanism underlying these visual field changes, many investigators also tested various electrophysiological parameters. However, because electrophysiological testing requires considerable expertise on the part of the technician, this could be a source of variability in results and may also pose a challenge with data interpretation. The magnitude of the problem is difficult to assess. The manufacturer's estimate of incidence of visual field defects with vigabatrin was approximately 0.1%, but incidences estimated in the literature range from 6 to 30%. Since the majority of the published data are in case report form, proof of causation is also very difficult. Two papers that used proper scientific methodology to investigate this condition suggest that vigabatrin causes these changes; however, there needs to be further studies with larger populations to answer this question definitively. There is a lack of data on the dose-response characteristics of vigabatrin and the development of visual field defects. The only available data are reports of trends that implicate duration of therapy or cumulative dose. Perhaps the most important area to elucidate is whether or not the visual field defects are reversible. Data are scare on this subject, but we can hope that data will emerge as follow-up periods become more substantial. There is a need for more complete information regarding several aspects of the mechanistic basis of visual field defects associated with vigabatrin that will allow rational clinical decision making. The treatment choices, both pharmacological and nonpharmacological, for patients with refractory epilepsy have grown substantially in the last few years. Thus, it is doubtful that the clinical positioning of vigabatrin is likely to change in the future from that of a very valuable 'niche drug', with emphasis on paediatric usage.

Visual function is stable in patients who continue long-term vigabatrin therapy: implications for clinical decision making

PURPOSE

Vigabatrin (VGB) has been shown to cause visual field constriction and other forms of mild visual dysfunction. We determined the safety of continuing VGB therapy in patients who had received prolonged treatment (>2 years) with the drug by serially monitoring changes in visual function over a 1-year period of continued therapy. We also followed up patients who discontinued VGB to see whether alternative therapies are effective.

METHODS

Fifteen of 17 patients who continued VGB therapy had visual-function testing (visual acuity, color vision, kinetic and static perimetry) every 3 months for 1 year. Eighteen patients who discontinued VGB were given alternative antiepileptic drugs (AEDs); their seizure responses were measured after > or =3 months of treatment.

RESULTS

Patients continuing VGB showed no worsening of visual acuity, color vision, or visual-field constriction beyond that measured in the initial test. Many patients who discontinued VGB had good seizure control with either newer or previously unsuccessful AEDs.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients who have an excellent response to VGB and only mild visual changes, continued therapy may be safe with close visual monitoring. Patients who do not have a significant reduction in seizures or who experience considerable visual dysfunction with VGB may respond well to alternative therapies.