Visual field defects associated with vigabatrin therapy

OBJECTIVE To estimate the prevalence of visual field defects in patients taking the anticonvulsant drug vigabatrin and to characterise the features of visual dysfunction found. METHODS Thirty three unselected patients attending neurology and epilepsy clinics were identified as taking vigabatrin and...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of neurology, neurosurgery and psychiatry Vol. 67; no. 6; pp. 716 - 722
Main Authors Lawden, M C, Eke, T, Degg, C, Harding, G F A, Wild, J M
Format Journal Article Conference Proceeding
LanguageEnglish
Published London BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 01.12.1999
BMJ
BMJ Publishing Group LTD
BMJ Group
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:OBJECTIVE To estimate the prevalence of visual field defects in patients taking the anticonvulsant drug vigabatrin and to characterise the features of visual dysfunction found. METHODS Thirty three unselected patients attending neurology and epilepsy clinics were identified as taking vigabatrin and asked to attend for neuro-ophthalmic evaluation. A control group of 16 patients with epilepsy unexposed to vigabatrin was also evaluated. Visual fields were examined by static perimetry using a Humphrey field analyser. Patients underwent detailed ophthalmic examination, various blood tests, and brain MRI where necessary. Visual evoked responses (VERs), electro-oculograms (EOGs), and electroretinograms (ERGs) were recorded. RESULTS Of 31 assessable patients treated with vigabatrin, 16 (52%) had definitely abnormal visual fields, nine (29%) had fields that were inconclusive, four (13%) had normal fields, and two (6%) proved unable to cooperate with testing. In four patients some plausible cause was found for the field abnormality leaving 12 patients (39%) in whom a definite bilateral field defect was found, possibly caused by vigabatrin treatment. Of 16 control patients none had definitely abnormal fields, 12 (75%) had normal fields, and four (25%) had fields that were inconclusive. The field defects associated with vigabatrin treatment showed a characteristic pattern of concentric peripheral field loss with temporal and macular sparing. The VERs and ERGs were normal. The EOG Arden Index was reduced in patients taking vigabatrin, although this returned towards normal when vigabatrin was stopped, even in the presence of persistent field defects. Multifocal ERGs recorded in two patients were abnormal, showing marked reduction in amplitude of the peripheral focal ERG. CONCLUSIONS Treatment with vigabatrin was associated with a high prevalence of peripheral visual field defects. This seemed to be the result of a toxic effect of vigabatrin on the retina and seemed to persist if the drug was withdrawn.
Bibliography:istex:B57A9DCD277A1782045BFDFA4D26172E325205C0
ark:/67375/NVC-4NLS9ZKV-L
local:jnnp;67/6/716
href:jnnp-67-716.pdf
Dr M C Lawden, Department of Neurology, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, LE1 5WW, UK.
PMID:10567485
ISSN:0022-3050
1468-330X
DOI:10.1136/jnnp.67.6.716