Relevance of basic research to clinical data: good answers, wrong questions!

Do vaccines cause epilepsy? Review of cases in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

OBJECTIVE

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), a no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system. Since 1988, the total compensation paid exceeds $5 billion. Although epilepsy is one of the leading reasons for filing a claim, there has been no review of the process and validity of the legal outcomes given current medical information. The objectives were to review the evolution of the VICP program in regard to vaccine-related epilepsy and assess the rationale behind decisions made by the court.

METHODS

Publicly available cases involving epilepsy claims in the VICP were searched through Westlaw and the US Court of Federal Claims websites. All published reports were reviewed for petitioner's theories supporting vaccine-induced epilepsy, respondent's counterarguments, the final decision regarding compensation, and the rationale underlying these decisions. The primary goal was to determine which factors went into decisions regarding whether vaccines caused epilepsy.

RESULTS

Since the first epilepsy case in 1989, there have been many changes in the program, including the removal of residual seizure disorder as a vaccine-related injury, publication of the Althen prongs, release of the acellular form of pertussis, and recognition that in genetic conditions the underlying genetic abnormality rather than the immunization causes epilepsy. We identified 532 unique cases with epilepsy: 105 with infantile spasms and 427 with epilepsy without infantile spasms. The petitioners' experts often espoused outdated, erroneous causation theories that lacked an acceptable medical or scientific foundation and were frequently criticized by the court.

SIGNIFICANCE

Despite the lack of epidemiological or mechanistic evidence indicating that childhood vaccines covered by the VICP result in or aggravate epilepsy, these cases continue to be adjudicated. After 35 years of intense litigation, it is time to reconsider whether epilepsy should continue to be a compensable vaccine-induced injury.

The Epilepsy Spectrum: Targeting Future Research Challenges

There have been tremendous recent advances in our understanding of the biological underpinnings of epilepsy and associated comorbidities that justify its representation as a spectrum disorder. Advances in genetics, electrophysiology, and neuroimaging have greatly improved our ability to differentiate, diagnose, and treat individuals with epilepsy. However, we have made little overall progress in preventing epilepsy, and the number of patients who are cured remains small. Likewise, the comorbidities of epilepsy are often underdiagnosed or not adequately treated. In this article, we suggest a few areas in which additional research will likely pay big dividends for patients and their families.

Pursuing paradoxical proconvulsant prophylaxis for epileptogenesis

There are essentially two potential treatment options for any acquired disorder: symptomatic or prophylactic. For acquired epilepsies that follow a variety of different brain insults, there remains a complete lack of prophylactic treatment options, whereas at the same time these epilepsies are notoriously resistant, once they have emerged, to symptomatic treatments with antiepileptic drugs. The development of prophylactic strategies is logistically challenging, both for basic researchers and clinicians. Nevertheless, cannabinoid-targeting drugs provide a very interesting example of a system within the central nervous system (CNS) that can have very different acute and long-term effects on hyperexcitability and seizures. In this review, we outline research on cannabinoids suggesting that although cannabinoid antagonists are acutely proconvulsant, they may have beneficial effects on long-term hyperexcitability following brain insults of multiple etiologies, making them promising candidates for further investigation as prophylactics against acquired epilepsy. We then discuss some of the implications of this finding on future attempts at prophylactic treatments, specifically, the very short window within which prevention may be possible, the possibility that traditional anticonvulsants may interfere with prophylactic strategies, and the importance of moving beyond anticonvulsants-even to proconvulsants-to find the ideal preventative strategy for acquired epilepsy.