Reply to the commentary by Ben-Ari and Delpire: Bumetanide and neonatal seizures: Fiction versus reality

Kaila, Löscher and colleagues report that Phenobarbital (PHB) and Midazolam (MDZ) attenuate neonatal seizures following birth asphyxia, but the former only when applied before asphyxia and the latter before or after the triggering insult. In contrast, the NKCC1 chloride importer antagonist Bumetanide (BUM) had no effect whether applied alone or with PHB. The observations are compelling and in accord with earlier studies. Yet, there are several general issues that deserve discussion. What is the clinical relevance of these data and the validity of animal models of encephalopathic seizures? Why is it that although they act on similar targets, these agents have different efficacy? Are both PHB and MDZ actions restricted to GABAergic mechanisms? Why is BUM inefficient in attenuating seizures but capable of reducing the severity of other brain disorders? We suggest that the relative failure of Anti-Epileptic Drugs (AEDs) to treat this severe life-threatening condition is in part explicable by the recurrent seizures that shift the polarity of GABA, thereby counteracting their effects on their target. AEDs might be efficient after a few seizures but not recurrent ones. In addition, PHB and MDZ actions are not limited to GABA signals. BUM attenuates efficiently Autism symptomatology notably in patients with Tuberous Sclerosis but does not reduce the recurrent seizures, illustrating the uniqueness of epilepsies. Therefore, the efficacy of AEDs to treat babies with encephalopathic seizures will depend on the history and severity of the seizures prior to their administration, challenging a universal common underlying mechanism.