The Safety and Effectiveness of Intravenous Lacosamide for Refractory Status Epilepticus in the Critically Ill

Intravenous lacosamide for acute repetitive seizures and convulsive status epilepticus in critically ill children

OBJECTIVE

Acute repetitive seizures and convulsive status epilepticus are common neurological emergencies in critically ill children. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intravenous lacosamide in critically ill children with acute repetitive seizures and convulsive status epilepticus.

METHODS

This retrospective study included children who received intravenous lacosamide for acute repetitive seizures or convulsive status epilepticus from October 2017 to September 2022 and were admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit at a tertiary medical center. Children who were newly started on intravenous lacosamide were included and divided into two groups: (a) previously healthy, and (b) history of epilepsy and receiving antiseizure medications. Efficacy was defined as the cessation of seizures within 72 h of administering lacosamide. Adverse effects were defined using predefined criteria, and most were evaluated during the first 7 days.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven children were enrolled, including 25 (37.3%) girls and 42 (62.7%) boys with a mean age of 7.20 ± 5.66 years. Among them, 30 (44.8%) had acute repetitive seizures, and 37 (55.2%) had convulsive status epilepticus. The seizure types were focal onset (n = 34, 50.7%), generalized onset (n = 27, 40.3%), and mixed type (n = 6, 9.0%). In the previously healthy group, 9 patients had acute repetitive seizures and 23 had convulsive status epilepticus, and the rates of seizure cessation when lacosamide was used as the first to fourth choice of antiseizure medication were 100.0%, 85.7%, 40.0%, and 50.0%, respectively, compared to 73.7%, 54.5%, 100.0%, and 0.0% in the patients with epilepsy (21 had acute repetitive seizures and 14 had convulsive status epilepticus). Sixteen (23.9%) patients developed bradycardia and 1 (1.5%) patient developed a rash.

SIGNIFICANCE

The early use of intravenous lacosamide was effective with acceptable side effects in treating acute repetitive seizures and convulsive status epilepticus in critically ill children, including young infants and children less than 4 years old and those with different etiologies.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Acute repetitive seizures and convulsive status epilepticus are common neurological emergencies in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs), traditional intravenous antiseizure medications (ASMs) include phenytoin, valproic acid, levetiracetam, and phenobarbital. In this study, we categorized patients based on their epilepsy history and different etiologies. We observed that early use of lacosamide, even in young infants, demonstrated good efficacy and safety.

Third-Generation Antiseizure Medication in the Treatment of Benzodiazepine-Refractory Status Epilepticus in Poststroke Epilepsy: A Retrospective Observational Register-Based Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Status epilepticus in poststroke epilepsy is a challenging condition because of multiple vascular comorbidities and the advanced age of patients. Data on third-generation antiseizure medication (ASM) in this condition are limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of third-generation ASMs in the second- or third-line therapy of benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus in poststroke epilepsy following acute ischemic stroke.

METHODS

Data on the effectiveness of third-generation ASMs in patients with status epilepticus in poststroke epilepsy were gathered from two German Stroke Registries and the Mainz Epilepsy Registry. We included only cases with epilepsy remote to the ischemic event. No patients with acute symptomatic seizures were included. The following third-generation ASMs were included: brivaracetam, lacosamide, eslicarbazepine, perampanel, topiramate, and zonisamide. The assessment of effectiveness was based on seizure freedom within 48 h since the start of therapy with the respective ASM. Seizure freedom was evaluated both clinically (clinical evaluation at least three times per day) and by daily electroencephalogram records.

RESULTS

Of the 138 patients aged 70.8 ± 8.1 years with benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus in ischemic poststroke epilepsy, 33 (23.9%) were treated with lacosamide, 24 (17.4%) with brivaracetam, 23 (16.7%) with eslicarbazepine, 21 (15.2%) with perampanel, 20 (14.5%) with topiramate, and 17 (12.3%) with zonisamide. Seizure freedom within 48 h was achieved in 66.7% of patients with lacosamide, 65.2% with eslicarbazepine, 38.1% with perampanel, 37.5% with brivaracetam, 35.0% with topiramate, and 35.3% with zonisamide (p < 0.05 for comparison of lacosamide or eslicarbazepine to other ASMs).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these data, lacosamide and eslicarbazepine might be more favorable in the treatment of refractory status epilepticus in poststroke epilepsy, when administered as second- or third-line ASMs before anesthesia. Because of the fact that these ASMs share the same mechanism of action (slow inactivation of sodium channels), our findings could motivate further research on the role that this pharmaceutical mechanism of action has in the treatment of poststroke epilepsy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05267405).

Twitter Journal Club Impact on Engagement Metrics of the Neurocritical Care Journal

BACKGROUND

Twitter journal clubs are a modern way of highlighting articles published in a scientific journal. The Neurocritical Care journal (NCC) initiated a bimonthly, Twitter-based, online journal club in 2015 to increase the outreach of its published articles. We hypothesize that articles included in the Neurocritical Care Society Twitter Journal Club (NCSTJC) had greater engagement than other articles published during the same time period. We also investigated the relationship between number of citations and Altmetric score to assess whether the enhanced online activity resulted in higher citations.

METHODS

We gathered data in August 2020 on engagement metrics (number of downloads, Altmetric score, relative citation ratio, and number of citations) of all articles published in NCC between 2015 and 2018. Articles were analyzed into two groups: one featured in NCSTJC and the rest that were not (non-NCSTJC1), and the other comprised those that were not in NCSTJC but published under a similar category of articles as NCSTJC (non-NCSTJC2). Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and summary measures were used to report the spread. The groups were compared by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test, given that the data were not normally distributed. Spearman's rank correlation was used to assess correlation between Altmetric score and citations for the articles in the NCSTJC and non-NCSTJC groups. For comparison, the top ten cited articles in NCC were analyzed for similar correlations.

RESULTS

Between 2015 and 2018, NCC published 529 articles, 24 of which were included in the Twitter journal club. A total of 406 articles were published in the same category as the category of articles selected for NCSTJC. The articles discussed as a part of NCSTJC had a statistically significant trend toward a higher number of downloads, Altmetric score, relative citation ratio, and number of citations than rest of the articles published in the journal during the same time period and the rest of the articles published in same categories. Three NCSTJC articles were among the ten most-cited articles published by NCC between 2015 and 2018. We did not find a correlation between Altmetric scores and number of citations in the NCSTJC or non-NCSTJC1 or non-NCSTJC2 group, but there was a strong correlation between these two variables in high performing articles when the top ten cited articles were analyzed.

CONCLUSIONS

Scientific journals are evolving their social media strategies in attempt to increase the outreach of their articles to the medical community. Platforms such as Twitter journal clubs can enhance such engagement. The long-term influence of such strategies on the impact factor of a medical journal and traditional engagement metrics, such as citations, calls for further research.

Effect of lacosamide on neuroinflammation-mediated seizures comorbid with depression in C57BL/6 mice- Role of kynurenine pathway

Comorbid conditions in persons with epilepsy (PWE) are very common with depression being highly prevalent. Lacosamide (LCM) is used to treat patients with seizures, but the underlying pathways associating the seizures and comorbid depression are still unknown. Kynurenine pathway (KP) has a major role in seizures, inflammation as well as depression, considering which we evaluated the effect of LCM on kynurenine levels in murine model of neuroinflammation-mediated seizures. We then evaluated the effects on the depressive symptoms associated with seizures. Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) primed pilocarpine (PILO) is an established model for neuro-inflammation-mediated seizures. The anti-seizure and anti-depressive effects of 21 days of LCM administration were studied in this model. After 24 h of seizure termination, behavioral parameters viz. forced swimming test and sucrose preference test were performed to study its antidepressant effect. Biochemical estimations of levels of kynurenine, inflammatory cytokines, and oxidative markers were also evaluated. Lacosamide significantly reduced hippocampal kynurenine levels in LPS and LPS + PILO groups but did not show significant reduction in the PILO alone group. Levels of inflammatory cytokines and oxidative stress markers were also reduced significantly. Lacosamide has shown positive effects against neuroinflammation-mediated model of seizures comorbid with depression by reducing hippocampal kynurenine levels. No reduction in the PILO group is suggestive of the principal contribution of its anti-inflammatory and antioxidant activity in its anti-seizure potential in this model via KP.

Treatment of Refractory Convulsive Status Epilepticus: A Comprehensive Review by the American Epilepsy Society Treatments Committee

Purpose:

Established tonic–clonic status epilepticus (SE) does not stop in one-third of patients when treated with an intravenous (IV) benzodiazepine bolus followed by a loading dose of a second antiseizure medication (ASM). These patients have refractory status epilepticus (RSE) and a high risk of morbidity and death. For patients with convulsive refractory status epilepticus (CRSE), we sought to determine the strength of evidence for 8 parenteral ASMs used as third-line treatment in stopping clinical CRSE.

Methods:

A structured literature search (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL) was performed to identify original studies on the treatment of CRSE in children and adults using IV brivaracetam, ketamine, lacosamide, levetiracetam (LEV), midazolam (MDZ), pentobarbital (PTB; and thiopental), propofol (PRO), and valproic acid (VPA). Adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), magnesium sulfate, and pyridoxine were added to determine the effectiveness in treating hard-to-control seizures in special circumstances. Studies were evaluated by predefined criteria and were classified by strength of evidence in stopping clinical CRSE (either as the last ASM added or compared to another ASM) according to the 2017 American Academy of Neurology process.

Results:

No studies exist on the use of ACTH, corticosteroids, or IVIg for the treatment of CRSE. Small series and case reports exist on the use of these agents in the treatment of RSE of suspected immune etiology, severe epileptic encephalopathies, and rare epilepsy syndromes. For adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists on the effectiveness of brivaracetam (level U; 4 class IV studies). For children and adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists on the effectiveness of ketamine (level U; 25 class IV studies). For children and adults with CRSE, it is possible that lacosamide is effective at stopping RSE (level C; 2 class III, 14 class IV studies). For children with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists that LEV and VPA are equally effective (level U, 1 class III study). For adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support the effectiveness of LEV (level U; 2 class IV studies). Magnesium sulfate may be effective in the treatment of eclampsia, but there are only case reports of its use for CRSE. For children with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support either that MDZ and diazepam infusions are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study) or that MDZ infusion and PTB are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study). For adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support either that MDZ infusion and PRO are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study) or that low-dose and high-dose MDZ infusions are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study). For children and adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that MDZ is effective as the last drug added (level U; 29 class IV studies). For adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that PTB and PRO are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study). For adults and children with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that PTB is effective as the last ASM added (level U; 42 class IV studies). For CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that PRO is effective as the last ASM used (level U; 26 class IV studies). No pediatric-only studies exist on the use of PRO for CRSE, and many guidelines do not recommend its use in children aged <16 years. Pyridoxine-dependent and pyridoxine-responsive epilepsies should be considered in children presenting between birth and age 3 years with refractory seizures and no imaging lesion or other acquired cause of seizures. For children with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists that VPA and diazepam infusion are equally effective (level U, 1 class III study). No class I to III studies have been reported in adults treated with VPA for CRSE. In comparison, for children and adults with established convulsive SE (ie, not RSE), after an initial benzodiazepine, it is likely that loading doses of LEV 60 mg/kg, VPA 40 mg/kg, and fosphenytoin 20 mg PE/kg are equally effective at stopping SE (level B, 1 class I study).

Conclusions:

Mostly insufficient evidence exists on the efficacy of stopping clinical CRSE using brivaracetam, lacosamide, LEV, valproate, ketamine, MDZ, PTB, and PRO either as the last ASM or compared to others of these drugs. Adrenocorticotropic hormone, IVIg, corticosteroids, magnesium sulfate, and pyridoxine have been used in special situations but have not been studied for CRSE. For the treatment of established convulsive SE (ie, not RSE), LEV, VPA, and fosphenytoin are likely equally effective, but whether this is also true for CRSE is unknown. Triple-masked, randomized controlled trials are needed to compare the effectiveness of parenteral anesthetizing and nonanesthetizing ASMs in the treatment of CRSE.

Therapeutic Options for Patients with Refractory Status Epilepticus in Palliative Settings or with a Limitation of Life-Sustaining Therapies: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Refractory status epilepticus (RSE) represents a serious medical condition requiring early and targeted therapy. Given the increasing number of elderly or multimorbid patients with a limitation of life-sustaining therapy (LOT) or within a palliative care setting (PCS), guidelines-oriented therapy escalation options for RSE have to be omitted frequently.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review sought to summarize the evidence for fourth-line antiseizure drugs (ASDs) and other minimally or non-invasive therapeutic options beyond guideline recommendations in patients with RSE to elaborate on possible treatment options for patients undergoing LOT or in a PCS.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, focusing on fourth-line ASDs or other minimally or non-invasive therapeutic options was performed in February and June 2020 using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. The search terminology was constructed using the name of the specific ASD or therapy option and the term 'status epilepticus' with the use of Boolean operators, e.g. "(brivaracetam) AND (status epilepticus)". The respective Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Emtree terms were used, if available.

RESULTS

There is currently no level 1, grade A evidence for the use of ASDs in RSE. The best evidence was found for the use of lacosamide and topiramate (level 3, grade C), followed by brivaracetam, perampanel (each level 4, grade D) and stiripentol, oxcarbazepine and zonisamide (each level 5, grade D). Regarding non-medicinal options, there is little evidence for the use of the ketogenic diet (level 4, grade D) and magnesium sulfate (level 5, grade D) in RSE. The broad use of immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive treatment options in the absence of a presumed autoimmune etiology cannot be recommended; however, if an autoimmune etiology is assumed, steroid pulse, intravenous immunoglobulins and plasma exchange/plasmapheresis should be considered (level 4, grade D). Even if several studies suggested that the use of neurosteroids (level 5, grade D) is beneficial in RSE, the current data situation indicates that there is formal evidence against it.

CONCLUSIONS

RSE in patients undergoing LOT or in a PCS represents a challenge for modern clinicians and epileptologists. The evidence for the use of ASDs in RSE beyond that in current guidelines is low, but several effective and well-tolerated options are available that should be considered in this patient population. More so than in any other population, advance care planning, advance directives, and medical ethical aspects have to be considered carefully before and during therapy.

Management of status epilepticus in adults. Position paper of the Italian League against Epilepsy

Since the publication of the Italian League Against Epilepsy guidelines for the treatment of status epilepticus in 2006, advances in the field have ushered in improvements in the therapeutic arsenal. The present position paper provides neurologists, epileptologists, neurointensive care specialists, and emergency physicians with updated recommendations for the treatment of adult patients with status epilepticus. The aim is to standardize treatment recommendations in the care of this patient population.

Safety and Efficiency of Intravenous Push Lacosamide Administration

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Intravenous (IV) lacosamide use for status epilepticus has increased in recent years and is recommended for refractory status epilepticus by current guidelines. Per the lacosamide package labeling, the preferred route of administration is diluted and infused over 30-60 min; however, administration undiluted is also acceptable and recent literature demonstrated safety at a maximum rate of 80 mg per minute (Kellinghaus et al. in Acta Neurol Scand 123:137-141, 2011). Undiluted administration as an IV push has potential to increase efficiency of administration to patients needing urgent seizure control since it may be dispensed from automatic dispensing cabinets in patient care areas. This study aims to compare safety outcomes and efficiency of administration in patients receiving lacosamide IV push compared to IV piggyback.

METHODS

We present a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients receiving lacosamide via IV piggyback or IV push from June 2016 to July 2017. Baseline characteristics, data related to potential safety concerns and timing of ordering, verification, and administration were collected. The primary safety outcomes were incidence of infusion site reactions, hypotension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] < 90 mm Hg), and bradycardia (heart rate [HR] < 50 beats per minute) documented within 2 h of each lacosamide dose. Secondary safety outcomes included the incidence of PR interval prolongation in patients with at least one electrocardiogram measured. The primary efficiency outcome was the time between order verification and administration.

RESULTS

Patients in the IV piggyback (n = 88) and IV push (n = 78) groups had similar baseline characteristics, initial dose, SBP, and HR. Hypotension (8 vs. 10.3%) and bradycardia (2.3 vs. 2.6%) rates were similar among both groups (p > 0.05). Only one patient in each group had documented PR prolongation, and no documented infusion reactions occurred. Median time from order verification to administration was significantly reduced in the IV push group (35 min vs. 1 h 49 min; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of lacosamide via IV push results in similar adverse effect rates to IV piggyback preparations with more efficient time to administration.

Focal status epilepticus: a review of pharmacological treatment

INTRODUCTION

Status epilepticus (SE) is a neurological emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality. One prognostic factor is the type of SE. The purpose of this review is to analyse the most recent recommendations of different scientific societies and expert groups on the treatment of SE, and the latest studies, to assess the literature on the management of focal SE.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for studies published between 1 August 2008 and 1 August 2018 on the pharmacological treatment of focal SE and its different types in adults.

RESULTS

We identified 29 publications among reviews, treatment guidelines, meta-analyses, clinical trials, and case series on the treatment of SE. Only 3 of them accounted for whether SE was focal or generalised; 4 focused exclusively on focal SE, and 7 differentiated between convulsive and non-convulsive SE and also record the presence of focal seizures. Treatment recommendations for focal SE do not differ from those of generalised SE in stages I and II: initially intravenous lorazepam or diazepam, if the intravenous route is available, and otherwise intramuscular midazolam, followed by intravenous phenytoin, valproate, levetiracetam, or lacosamide if seizures persist. Use of anaesthetic drugs should be delayed for as long as possible in patients with refractory focal SE.

CONCLUSIONS

The available scientific evidence is insufficient to claim that pharmacological treatment of focal SE should be different from treatment for generalised SE. More studies with a greater number of patients are needed.

Antiseizure medications in critical care: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Seizures and status epilepticus are very common diagnoses in the critically ill patient and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There is an abundance of research on the utility of antiseizure medications in this setting, but limited randomized-controlled trials to guide the selection of medications in these patients. This review examines the current guidelines and treatment strategies for status epilepticus and provides an update on newer antiseizure medications in the critical care settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Time is brain applies to status epilepticus, with delays in treatment corresponding with worsened outcomes. Establishing standardized treatment protocols within a health system, including prehospital treatment, may lead to improved outcomes. Once refractory status epilepticus is established, continuous deep sedation with intravenous anesthetic agents should be effective. In cases, which prove highly refractory, novel approaches should be considered, with recent data suggesting multiple recently approved antiseizure medications, appropriate therapeutic options, as well as novel approaches to upregulate extrasynaptic γ-aminobutyric acid channels with brexanolone.

SUMMARY

Although there are many new treatments to consider for seizures and status epilepticus in the critically ill patient, the most important predictor of outcome may be rapid diagnosis and treatment. There are multiple new and established medications that can be considered in the treatment of these patients once status epilepticus has become refractory, and a multidrug regimen will often be necessary.

Use of Newer Anticonvulsants for the Treatment of Status Epilepticus

Status epilepticus (SE) has a high mortality rate and is one of the most common neurologic emergencies. Fast progression of this neurologic emergency and lack of response to traditional antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in most cases has challenged clinicians to use new agents. This article evaluates the efficacy and safety of AEDs released to the market after 2000 for SE, refractory status epilepticus (RSE), and super-refractory status epilepticus (SRSE). The PubMed database was searched for clinical trials published between January 2000 and July 2018 using the search terms status epilepticus, refractory status epilepticus, super refractory status epilepticus, brivaracetam, clobazam, cannabidiol, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, perampanel, rufinamide, stiripentol, and zonisamide. Trials that evaluated these agents in adults with SE, RSE, and SRSE were included. Brivaracetam use was identified in two retrospective reviews with success rates of 27% and 57%. One unsuccessful case report of cannabidiol use in SE was found. Four clobazam studies were identified in SE and RSE with success rates ranging from 25-100%. No evidence for the use of eslicarbazepine and zonisamide was found. Using the search terms for lacosamide identified 38 articles: 1 systematic review, 5 prospective studies, 15 retrospective reviews, and 17 case reports. Success rates and dosing varied, but studies that included focal or partial types of SE showed higher success rates. Five articles were identified regarding perampanel use in this setting. Three were retrospective reviews with success rates ranging from 17-60%, and two were case reports. Only one case report regarding the use of rufinamide was found; rufinamide titrated up to 4.4 mg/day allowed discontinuation of barbiturate and clobazam. One case report and two case series of stiripentol were found with reported efficacy between 60% and 100% in SRSE. Evidence is currently insufficient to support the use of these agents in this setting.