Valproic acid and fatalities in children: a review of individual case safety reports in VigiBase

Introduction Valproic acid is an effective first line drug for the treatment of epilepsy. Hepatotoxicity is a rare and potentially fatal adverse reaction for this medicine. Objective Firstly to characterise valproic acid reports on children with fatal outcome and secondly to determine reporting over time of hepatotoxicity with fatal outcome. Methods Individual case safety reports (ICSRs) for children ≤17 years with valproic acid and fatal outcome were retrieved from the WHO Global ICSR database, VigiBase, in June 2013. Reports were classified into hepatotoxic reactions or other reactions. Shrinkage observed-to-expected ratios were used to explore the relative reporting trend over time and for patient age. The frequency of polytherapy, i.e. reports with more than one antiepileptic medicine, was investigated. Results There have been 268 ICSRs with valproic acid and fatal outcome in children, reported from 25 countries since 1977. A total of 156 fatalities were reported with hepatotoxicity, which has been continuously and disproportionally reported over time. There were 31 fatalities with pancreatitis. Other frequently reported events were coma/encephalopathy, seizures, respiratory disorders and coagulopathy. Hepatotoxicity was disproportionally and most commonly reported in children aged 6 years and under (104/156 reports) but affected children of all ages. Polytherapy was significantly more frequently reported for valproic acid with fatal outcome (58%) compared with non-fatal outcome (34%). Conclusion Hepatotoxicity remains a considerable problem. The risk appears to be greatest in young children (6 years and below) but can occur at any age. Polytherapy is commonly reported and seems to be a risk factor for hepatotoxicity, pancreatitis and other serious adverse drug reactions with valproic acid

Requirements for generic anti-epileptic medicines: a regulatory perspective

Contains fulltext : 81660.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access

Anemia secondary to valproic acid therapy in a 13-year-old boy: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Valproic acid is a commonly used anti-epileptic drug. Hematological toxicities are among the occasionally observed adverse effects of this medication.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>We present the case of a 13-year-old Caucasian boy who demonstrated mild anemia 12 months after the introduction of valproic acid therapy. A bone marrow biopsy revealed maturation arrest of proerythroblasts.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Prompt diagnosis and valproic acid discontinuation resulted in the patient’s recovery.</p

Hypersensitivity reactions to antiepileptic drugs in children

Background: Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) can cause hypersensitivity reactions in children. These reactions are mainly cutaneous, self-limiting, and benign, but life-threatening severe cutaneous adverse reactions can occur. Infections can lead to skin eruptions and mimic drug hypersensitivity reactions, if a drug is taken at the same time. The aims of our study were to confirm or rule out the diagnosis of hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs in children and to detect an infection which mimics these reactions. Methods: A prospective survey was conducted in a group of 100 children with histories of hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs by performing patch tests, delayed-reading intradermal test, and, in case of negative results, challenge test. In all children, a study was performed to detect infections by viruses or Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Results: Maculopapular exanthema and delayed-appearing urticaria were the most reported hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs. Sixty-six (66%) of 100 children had confirmed hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs. Fifty-nine children had positive patch test. No children had positive challenge tests. The most common AEDs causing hypersensitivity reactions were carbamazepine (45.4%) and lamotrigine (43.6%). Thirty-two children had positive tests for viruses or M pneumoniae, and nine of them had also a positive allergy work-up. Conclusion: Considering that there are no specific tests to distinguish between a viral infection and hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs in the acute phase, a diagnostic work-up should be performed in all children with suspected hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs, as well as infectious agent study, to remove a false label of hypersensitivity