Intravenous levetiracetam vs phenytoin for status epilepticus and cluster seizures: A prospective, randomized study

Comparative efficacy and safety of second-line medications for status epilepticus: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To systematically review the efficacy and safety of second-line medications for status epilepticus (SE).

METHODS

Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials of second-line medications for SE from inception to January 2024. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Network meta-analysis was performed using R 4.2.2 software.

RESULTS

A total of 23 randomized controlled trials were analyzed, examining the efficacy of 5 different treatment regimens: levetiracetam (LEV), phenytoin (PHT), fosphenytoin (FPHT), valproate (VPA), and phenobarbital (PHB). The results of the network meta-analysis indicated that the seizure control rate ranking was as follows: PHB (98.1%) > LEV (60.7%) > FPHT (40.3%) > PHT (33.0%) > VPA (17.8%). The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) values revealed that PHB had the highest ranking (SUCRA, 91.8%), followed by VPA (SUCRA, 69.3%), PHT (SUCRA, 56.1%), and FPHT (SUCRA, 5.9%) for the recurrence of seizures within 24 hours. Subgroup analysis revealed that PHB was most effective for seizure control in both pediatric and adult populations, VPA demonstrated superior efficacy in children across various indicators, LEV was deemed the safest option for children and elderly individuals, and VPA was identified as the safest choice for adult patients.

CONCLUSIONS

PHB continues to be a prominent option for managing SE, although its safety profile warrants careful consideration. Meanwhile, both VPA and LEV offer distinctive advantages in the treatment of SE, with each demonstrating commendable safety profiles.

A Simulation-Based Assessment of Levetiracetam Concentrations Following Fixed and Weight-Based Loading Doses: A Meta-Regression and Pharmacokinetic Modeling Analysis

Current recommendations for refractory status epilepticus (SE) unresponsive to benzodiazepines suggest a loading dose of levetiracetam (LEV) of 60 mg/kg to a maximum of 4500 mg. LEV therapeutic drug monitoring can help guide therapy and is garnering increasing attention. The objective of this study is to simulate the probability of target attainment (PTA) of fixed dose and weight-based loading doses of LEV with respect to established therapeutic target concentrations. Meta-regression of the current literature was performed to evaluate the relationship between intravenous LEV loading dose and seizure cessation in refractory SE patients. A previously published pharmacokinetic model was used to simulate the PTA capacity of competing single intravenous dosing schemes (fixed vs weight-based dosing) to achieve maximum (Cpeak) and 12-h (C12h) plasma concentrations that exceed 12 mg/L. The meta-regression indicated that dosage was not a statistically significant modulator of seizure control at dosages between 20 and 60 mg/kg. Stochastic simulations showed all dosing schemes achieved plasma Cpeak >12 mg/L, but C12h levels were <12 mg/L in subjects over 60 kg with a fixed dose ≤2000 mg or in subjects <60 kg with a weight-based dose <30 mg/kg. Dosages of 40 and 60 mg/kg provided ≥90% PTAs across all weights. Using a weight-based loading dose of 40 mg/kg, up to a suggested maximum of 4500 mg, improves the likelihood of achieving a sustained therapeutic drug concentration after the initial LEV dose, whereas fixed <3000 mg may not achieve the desired concentration before maintenance dosing.

Intravenous levetiracetam versus intravenous phenytoin as second Line treatment in pediatric convulsive status epilepticus- open label randomized controlled trial

Background

Benzodiazepines (BZDs) are recommended as the initial therapy of choice in status epilepticus (SE). The age-old second-line treatment for BZD refractory convulsive SE is intravenous phenytoin (PHT) based predominantly on nonrandomized clinical trial data. We did this study to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous levetiracetam (LEV) and PHT as second-line antiseizure medication (ASM) for children with SE.

Methodology

A prospective, randomized controlled, open-label study was conducted in children 3 months to 15 years of age with SE in Pediatric Emergency. A total of 41 children were randomly allocated to either group 1 (Levetiracetam) or group 2 (Phenytoin) on the basis of computer-generated randomization. Children who were already on antiseizure medications, either LEV or PHT, or receiving these drugs outside for SE were excluded. Data analysis was done by SPSS V25.

Results

The most common age group presenting with SE was 12 months to 5 years. Clinical cessation of seizure 5 minutes after the completion of drugs was 85% (17/20) in Levetiracetam group and 90.5% (19/21) in Phenytoin group. Recurrence of seizure within 24 hours was noted in 35% (7/20) in Levetiracetam group and 38.1% (8/21) in Phenytoin group. There was no statistically significant difference noted in both the groups in terms of seizure cessation, adverse events, and recurrence.

Conclusion

The efficacy and safety of LEV were found to be comparable to those of PHT in controlling seizure as second-line ASM in SE.

Excessive Use of Benzodiazepines Is a Risk Factor for Endotracheal Intubation in Children Who Present to Emergency With Prehospital Status Epilepticus

OBJECTIVES

There is lack of evidence-based information on the use and timing of endotracheal intubation (ETI) in children with prehospital status epilepticus (SE).

METHODS

The aim of this study was to investigate ETI use, timing, risk factors, and outcomes in children presenting to a single-center children's emergency (CE) with prehospital SE, over a 5-year period.

RESULTS

A total of 118 events involving children presenting to CE with ongoing prehospital SE were included, and 39% (46/118) of the events required ETI. The most common indication for ETI was respiratory depression. The median time to intubation after arrival at CE was 20.0 minutes (1-155 minutes). Risk factors associated with ETI use include the administration of more than 2 benzodiazepines (26.1% vs 4.2%, P < 0.001) and the use of second- or third-line antiepileptic therapy ( P < 0.001). The use of more than 2 doses of benzodiazepines was found in 12.7% (15/118) of the patients. In patients who received excessive benzodiazepines, 87% (13/15) of them required intubation.

CONCLUSIONS

Excessive use of benzodiazepine was found to be a main risk factor for ETI in patients with prehospital SE. Avoidance of the excessive use of benzodiazepines and adhering to clinical management guidelines may reduce the risk for ETI in the CE. The best approach to airway management in children with prehospital SE is lacking and urgently needed.

Suboptimal Dosing of Benzodiazepines and Levetiracetam in a Cohort of Status Epilepticus Patients and Outcomes Associated with Inadequate Dosing

Background: Status epilepticus (SE) is a neurologic emergency that can result in serious morbidity and mortality. Recent studies have suggested underdosing of both benzodiazepines (BZDs) and antiseizure medications (ASM) which may result in poorer outcomes. Objectives: This study aims to determine the dose of BZDs and levetiracetam given in our emergency department for episodes of SE and determine the outcomes associated with this dosing. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all adult patients with SE admitted to our hospital from 2017 to 2020. We collected demographic data, type of SE, dose of BZD and levetiracetam, and outcomes which included mortality and a calculated Glasgow outcome scale (GOS). We compared outcomes of patients with SE who received adequate dosing (according to practice guidelines) to those who did not. Results: 111 adult patients were included of whom 91% were seen initially in our emergency department. 75% had convulsive SE on presentation. Approximately 55% and 68% of patients did not receive an appropriate dose of BZD or levetiracetam, respectively. Inadequate dosing of BZD was associated with worse clinical outcomes based on GOS (43.6% favorable outcome vs 62.5% with adequate dosing P = .046 (95% CI, 1.01-4.60)) and inadequate dosing of both drugs was also associated with a worse GOS outcome (HR, 2.91 (95% CI, 1.05-9.67, P = .02). No difference was found in length of stay or mortality alone. Conclusion: Our study found inadequate dosing of drugs to treat SE in adults was common in our institution and was associated with worse outcomes.

Levetiracetam Pharmacokinetics and Brain Uptake in a Lateral Fluid Percussion Injury Rat Model

Post-traumatic epilepsy (PTE) occurs in some patients after moderate/severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Although there are no approved therapies to prevent epileptogenesis, levetiracetam (LEV) is commonly given for seizure prophylaxis due to its good safety profile. This led us to study LEV as part of the Epilepsy Bioinformatics Study for Antiepileptogenic Therapy (EpiBioS4Rx) Project. The objective of this work is to characterize the pharmacokinetics (PK) and brain uptake of LEV in naïve control rats and in the lateral fluid percussion injury (LFPI) rat model of TBI after either single intraperitoneal doses or a loading dose followed by a 7-day subcutaneous infusion. Sprague-Dawley rats were used as controls and for the LFPI model induced at the left parietal region using injury parameters optimized for moderate/severe TBI. Naïve and LFPI rats received either a bolus injection (intraperitoneal) or a bolus injection followed by subcutaneous infusion over 7 days. Blood and parietal cortical samples were collected at specified time points throughout the study. LEV concentrations in plasma and brain were measured using validated high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) methods. Noncompartmental analysis and a naive-pooled compartmental PK modeling approach were used. Brain-to-plasma ratios ranged from 0.54 to 1.4 to 1. LEV concentrations were well fit by one-compartment, first-order absorption PK models with a clearance of 112 ml/h per kg and volume of distribution of 293 ml/kg. The single-dose pharmacokinetic data were used to guide dose selection for the longer-term studies, and target drug exposures were confirmed. Obtaining LEV PK information early in the screening phase allowed us to guide optimal treatment protocols in EpiBioS4Rx. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The characterization of levetiracetam pharmacokinetics and brain uptake in an animal model of post-traumatic epilepsy is essential to identify target concentrations and guide optimal treatment for future studies.

A retrospective multicentric study on the effectiveness of intravenous brivaracetam in seizure clusters: Data from the Italian experience

OBJECTIVE

Nearly half of people with epilepsy (PWE) are expected to develop seizure clusters (SC), with the subsequent risk of hospitalization. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the use, effectiveness and safety of intravenous (IV) brivaracetam (BRV) in the treatment of SC.

METHODS

Retrospective multicentric study of patients with SC (≥ 2 seizures/24 h) who received IV BRV. Data collection occurred from January 2019 to April 2022 in 25 Italian neurology units. Primary efficacy outcome was seizure freedom up to 24 h from BRV administration. We also evaluated the risk of evolution into Status Epilepticus (SE) at 6, 12 and 24 h after treatment initiation. A Cox regression model was used to identify outcome predictors.

RESULTS

97 patients were included (mean age 62 years), 74 (76%) of whom had a history of epilepsy (with drug resistant seizures in 49% of cases). BRV was administered as first line treatment in 16% of the episodes, while it was used as first or second drug after benzodiazepines failure in 49% and 35% of episodes, respectively. On the one hand, 58% patients were seizure free at 24 h after BRV administration and no other rescue medications were used in 75 out of 97 cases (77%) On the other hand, SC evolved into SE in 17% of cases. A higher probability of seizure relapse and/or evolution into SE was observed in patients without a prior history of epilepsy (HR 2.0; 95% CI 1.03 - 4.1) and in case of BRV administration as second/third line drug (HR 3.2; 95% CI 1.1 - 9.7). No severe treatment emergent adverse events were observed.

SIGNIFICANCE

In our cohort, IV BRV resulted to be well tolerated for the treatment of SC and it could be considered as a treatment option, particularly in case of in-hospital onset. However, the underlying etiology seems to be the main outcome predictor.

Levetiracetam versus fosphenytoin as a second-line treatment after diazepam for adult convulsive status epilepticus: a multicentre non-inferiority randomised control trial

OBJECTIVE

Status epilepticus (SE) is an emergency condition for which rapid and secured cessation is crucial. Although fosphenytoin (FPHT) is recommended as a second-line treatment, levetiracetam (LEV) reportedly has similar efficacy, but higher safety. Therefore, we herein compared LEV with FPHT in adult SE.

METHODS

We initiated a multicentre randomised control trial in emergency departments with adult patients with convulsive SE. Diazepam was initially administered, followed intravenously by FPHT at 22.5 mg/kg or LEV at 1000-3000 mg. The primary outcome was assigned as the seizure cessation rate within 30 min of the administration of the study drug.

RESULTS

A total of 176 adult patients with SE were enrolled (82 FPHT and 94 LEV), and 3 were excluded from the full analysis set. Seizure cessation rates within 30 min were 83.8% (67/80) in the FPHT group and 89.2% (83/93) in the LEV group. The difference in these rates was 5.5% (95% CI -4.7 to 15.7, p=0.29). The non-inferiority of LEV to FPHT was confirmed with p<0.001 by the Farrington-Manning test. No significant differences were observed in the seizure recurrence rate or intubation rate within 24 hours. Serious adverse events developed in three patients in the FPHT group and none in the LEV group (p=0.061).

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of LEV was similar to that of FPHT for adult SE following the administration of diazepam. LEV may be recommended as a second-line treatment for SE along with phenytoin/FPHT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

jRCTs031190160.

Update on Antiseizure Medications 2022

EDITORS NOTE

The article "Update on Antiseizure Medications 2022" by Dr Abou-Khalil was first published in the February 2016 Epilepsy issue of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology as "Antiepileptic Drugs," and at the request of the Editor-in-Chief was updated by Dr Abou-Khalil for the 2019 issue and again for this issue.

Phenytoin versus other antiepileptic drugs as treatments for status epilepticus in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

Status epilepticus (SE) is a life‐threatening neurological emergency. There is insufficient evidence regarding which antiepileptic therapy is most effective in patients with benzodiazepine‐refractory convulsive SE. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate intravenous phenytoin (PHT) and other intravenous antiepileptic medications for SE.

Methods

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in humans up to August 2019. We compared outcomes between intravenous PHT and other intravenous medications. The important primary composite outcomes were the successful clinical cessation of seizures, mortality, and neurological outcomes at discharge. The reliability of the level of evidence for each outcome was compared using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

Results

A total of 1,103 studies were identified from the databases, and 10 RCTs were included in the analysis. The ratio of successful clinical seizure cessation was significantly lower (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82–0.97) for patients treated with intravenous PHT than with other medications. When we compared mortality and neurological outcomes at discharge, we observed no significant differences between patients treated with PHT and those treated with other medications. The RRs were 1.07 (95% CI, 0.55–2.08) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.72–1.15) for mortality and neurological outcomes at discharge, respectively.

Conclusions

Our findings showed that intravenous PHT was significantly inferior to other medications in terms of the cessation of seizures. No significant differences were observed in mortality or neurological outcomes between PHT and other medications.

Levetiracetam for Status Epilepticus in Adults: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Status epilepticus (SE) is a neurologic emergency with potential for substantial mortality and morbidity. Parenteral benzodiazepine is the established first-line treatment but fails to control SE in about one-third of patients. Levetiracetam may be used for SE that is refractory to benzodiazepine therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To examine, by means of a systematic review, the role of IV levetiracetam for the treatment of SE in adults.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases were searched, from inception to August 18, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Included in this review were prospective randomized controlled trials comparing levetiracetam with another antiepileptic drug, given with or after a benzodiazepine, in adult patients with SE. The primary outcome was cessation of SE. Quality of evidence was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Characteristics of the included studies were reported using descriptive statistics.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Five studies compared IV levetiracetam with valproic acid, phenytoin (or its prodrug fosphenytoin), or both. All 5 studies found no statistically significant differences in efficacy or safety end points. There were numerically more cases of hypotension and respiratory failure with phenytoin, and more cases of psychiatric adverse effects (e.g., post-ictal psychosis) with levetiracetam.

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence suggests that levetiracetam is as effective as valproic acid or phenytoin for the cessation of SE in adults. Other factors should therefore dictate the choice of antiepileptic drug for patients with SE, such as adverse effect profile, logistics of administration, drug cost, inclusion on hospital formularies, and drug availability.

The Efficacy and Safety Profile of Generic Intravenous Levetiracetam in a Real-World Setting

Background

There are 3 main epileptic conditions in hospital settings that may require intravenous antiepileptic treatment: status epilepticus, acute repetitive convulsive seizures, and postoperative seizures. Generic intravenous levetiracetam (IV LEV) (Focale; Great Eastern Drug Co, Bangkok, Thailand), has been reported to have comparable efficacy to original IV LEV for treating status epilepticus and acute repetitive convulsive seizures in a randomized controlled trial. At present, there are limited data on the efficacy and tolerability of generic intravenous LEV in real-world situations.

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of generic IV LEV in a real-world setting.

Methods

A retrospective study and analyses were conducted. All adult patients who used IV LEV at University Hospital, Khon Kaen University, Thailand from June 1, 2019, until February 15, 2020, were included. Data were analyzed and reported in terms of the efficacy and tolerability of generic IV LEV.

Results

Ninety-three patients received IV LEV by 3 indications: status epilepticus, acute repetitive convulsive seizures, and postoperative seizures. The proportions of these 3 indications were 41.94% (39 patients), 9.67% (9 patients), and 48.39% (45 patients), respectively. The average seizure control rate at 24 hours was 89.25%. The seizure control rate was significantly higher in the acute repetitive convulsive seizures and postoperative seizure groups than in the status epilepticus group when generic IV LEV was given as the first-line treatment (75.00%; 88.37% vs 50.00%; P 0.035). The average length of hospital stay was 18.24 (25.40) days. There was no significant discharge status among the 3 groups (P = 0.348). Moreover, the average mortality rate was 5.38%. Side effects were reported in 14 patients (15.05%). The 2 most common side effects were vomiting and bronchospasm (3 patients; 3.22%). There were 10 patients with uncontrolled seizures at 24 hours (10.75%). The only factor associated with uncontrolled seizures at 24 hours was a history of epilepsy. The uncontrolled seizure group had a higher proportion of epilepsy patients than the seizure-controlled group (70.00% vs 33.73%; P = 0.037). Poor discharge status (not improved/death) was 18.28% (17 patients). There was no significant factor between those with an improved or poor discharge status.

Conclusions

Generic IV LEV was effective and relatively well tolerated in the 3 clinical settings (ie, status epilepticus, acute repetitive convulsive seizures, and postoperative seizures). Further clinical data are still required to confirm the results of this study.

(Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2022; 83:XXX–XXX)

Seizure clusters

Acute repetitive seizures, also called seizure clusters, are common phenomena in patients with epilepsy. They are a burden on patients and their caregivers and may be very disruptive to the patients' lives. They may progress to prolonged seizures or status epilepticus if they are not aborted as soon as possible. However, their definition, recognition, and classification still suffer from a lack of consensus among healthcare professionals in the field. This review aims to shed light on various aspects of seizure clusters with particular attention to their treatments.

Efficacy and safety of levetiracetam versus (fos)phenytoin for second-line treatment of epilepticus: a meta-analysis of latest randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficiency and safety profiles of levetiracetam and (fos)phenytoin (phenytoin or fosphenytoin) for second-line treatment of seizures by performing a meta-analysis of RCTs.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, FDA.gov, and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs (published before July 31, 2020; no language restrictions). Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and titles against inclusion and exclusion criteria published previously in the PROSPERO: CRD42020202736. Eleven studies fulfilled the established criteria. We assessed pooled data by using a random-effects model. Quality analysis was performed by using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). RevMan v.5.3 was used to perform statistical analyses, and publication bias (egger's test) was assessed with Stata MP v.14.0.

RESULTS

Levetiracetam was similar to (fos)phenytoin in seizure termination rate (risk ratio [RR] 0.94; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.01), time of seizure termination (mean difference [MD] 0.44; -0.60 to 1.49), and drug resistance ([RR] 1.12, 0.86 to 1.45). The safety outcome showed a significant statistical difference between fosphenytoin group and levetiracetam group ([RR] 1.44, 1.14 to 1.81), while there was no significant difference observed between phenytoin treatment and levetiracetam treatment ([RR] 1.26, 0.99 to 1.60).

CONCLUSION

Levetiracetam was similar to (fos)phenytoin in cessation rate convulsive status epilepticus, and drug resistance, while it was superior (fos)phenytoin in pooled safety outcome. Further exploration is still needed as to whether it is the first choice for second-line drugs.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam and phenytoin in the treatment of established status epilepticus: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Status epilepticus (SE) is the second most critical neurological illness after cerebrovascular disease. Phenytoin has traditionally been considered the second-line drug of first choice after failure of first-line treatment using benzodiazepines. In recent years, levetiracetam has been proposed as a potential substitute for phenytoin. To comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam and phenytoin in the treatment of patients with established SE, we integrated the data from 11 eligible studies and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. The PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched to identify eligible articles reporting outcomes including clinical seizure cessation within 60 min, clinical recurrence rate within 24 h, good final outcome at discharge, and adverse events (AEs) of treatment with levetiracetam and phenytoin. Our study included a total of 11 trials including a total of 1933 patients. The outcomes showed that the pooled Risk Raito (RR) of clinical seizure cessation within 60 min was 1.08 (95% CI = 1.02-1.14, P = 0.01). The pooled RR of clinical recurrence rate within 24 h was 1.03 (95% CI = 0.66-1.59, P = 0.91). The pooled RR of AEs was 0.83 (95% CI = 0.57-1.21, P = 0.34). The pooled RRs of life-threatening hypotension and acute respiratory depression were 0.29 (95% CI = 0.10-0.81, P = 0.02) and 0.63 (95% CI = 0.40-0.98, P = 0.04), respectively. Levetiracetam might be more effective than phenytoin for the treatment of established SE and is associated with a lower incidence of more serious AEs. Levetiracetam can be used as an alternative to phenytoin for the treatment of benzodiazepine-refractory SE.

Levetiracetam versus fosphenytoin as a second-line treatment after diazepam for status epilepticus: study protocol for a multicenter non-inferiority designed randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

Status epilepticus (SE) is an emergency condition for which rapid and secured cessation is important. Phenytoin and fosphenytoin, the prodrug of phenytoin with less severe adverse effects, have been recommended as second-line treatments. However, fosphenytoin causes severe adverse events, such as hypotension and arrhythmia. Levetiracetam reportedly has similar efficacy and higher safety for SE; however, evidence to support its use for adult SE is lacking. In the present study, a non-inferiority designed multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) is being conducted to compare levetiracetam with fosphenytoin after diazepam as a second-line treatment for SE.

METHODS

This multicenter, prospective, and open-label RCT is conducted in emergency departments. Between December 23, 2019, and March 31, 2023, 176 patients with convulsive SE transported to an emergency room will be randomized into a fosphenytoin group and levetiracetam group at a ratio of 1:1. The definition of SE is "continuous seizures longer than 5 min or discrete seizures longer than 2 min with intervening consciousness disturbance." In both groups, diazepam is initially administered at 1-20 mg, followed by intravenous fosphenytoin at 22.5 mg/kg or intravenous levetiracetam at 1000-3000 mg. The primary outcome is the seizure cessation rate within 30 min. Seizure recurrence within 24 h, severe adverse events, and intubation rate within 24 h are secondary outcomes.

DISCUSSION

The present study was approved and conducted as an initiative study of the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine. If non-inferiority is identified, the society will pursue an application for the national health insurance coverage of levetiracetam for SE via a public knowledge-based application.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japan Registry of Clinical Trials jRCTs031190160 . Registered on December 13, 2019.

Levetiracetam versus Phenytoin for the Pharmacotherapy of Benzodiazepine-Refractory Status Epilepticus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown conflicting results regarding the effectiveness of levetiracetam for treating benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus (SE) compared with phenytoin. Therefore, a meta-analysis was carried out to assess the value of levetiracetam versus phenytoin in the pharmacotherapy of benzodiazepine-refractory SE.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam and phenytoin in the treatment of benzodiazepine-refractory SE.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that had been conducted to evaluate levetiracetam versus phenytoin for benzodiazepine-refractory SE, to April 2020. The data were assessed using Review Manager 5.3 software. The risk ratio (RR) was analyzed using dichotomous outcomes, and calculated using a random-effect model.

RESULTS

We pooled 1850 patients from 12 RCTs. Patients in the levetiracetam group had a significantly higher rate of clinical seizure cessation than in the phenytoin group (75.2% vs. 67.8%; RR 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.25, p = 0.003). Moreover, less adverse events were observed in the levetiracetam group than in the phenytoin group (17.8% vs. 21.4%; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70-0.97, p = 0.02). In subgroup analysis, clinical seizure cessation was achieved more frequently with a higher dose of levetiracetam (> 30 mg/kg) [RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.00-1.32, p = 0.05]. Furthermore, in the subgroup of children, levetiracetam showed a higher rate of clinical seizure cessation than phenytoin (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02-1.25, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Pharmacotherapy for BZD-refractory SE by LEV is superior to PHT in efficacy and safety outcomes.

Status Epilepticus-Work-Up and Management in Children

Status epilepticus (SE) is one of the most common neurological emergencies in children and has a mortality of 2 to 4%. Admissions for SE are very resource-consuming, especially in refractory and super-refractory SE. An increasing understanding of the pathophysiology of SE leaves room for improving SE treatment protocols, including medication choice and timing. Selecting the most efficacious medications and giving them in a timely manner may improve outcomes. Benzodiazepines are commonly used as first line and they can be used in the prehospital setting, where most SE episodes begin. The diagnostic work-up should start simultaneously to initial treatment, or as soon as possible, to detect potentially treatable causes of SE. Although most etiologies are recognized after the first evaluation, the detection of more unusual causes may become challenging in selected cases. SE is a life-threatening medical emergency in which prompt and efficacious treatment may improve outcomes. We provide a summary of existing evidence to guide clinical decisions regarding the work-up and treatment of SE in pediatric patients.

Levetiracetam vs. phenytoin as 2nd-line treatment for status epilepticus: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam (LEV) or phenytoin (PHT) as second-line treatment for status epilepticus (SE).

METHODS

PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Scopus, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar were assessed for prospective randomized trials comparing LEV with PHT as second-line treatment of SE published from inception until December 18th, 2019. The primary outcome was seizure cessation. Data were analyzed using a random-effects model. Quality analysis was performed using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020136417).

RESULTS

Nine studies with a total of 1732 patients were included. Overall, seizure cessation occurred in 657 of 887 (74%) of patients in the LEV group and 600 of 845 (71%) in the PHT group. Treatment success did not differ significantly between groups, and the relative risk (RR) was 1.05 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98-1.12; I² = 53%). Six of the studies were at low risk of bias, one study had some risk, and two studies had high risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of LEV or PHT as second-line agents after benzodiazepine (BZD) for the treatment of SE was not associated with a difference in seizure cessation. Because there are minimal differences in efficacy at this time, clinicians should consider alternative factors when deciding on an antiepileptic drug (AED).

Efficacy and safety profile of intravenous levetiracetam versus phenytoin in convulsive status epilepticus and acute repetitive seizures in children

PURPOSE

Although phenytoin is one of the most commonly used antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), it has potential serious side effects and drug interactions. Levetiracetam is a relatively newer AED with favorable pharmacokinetics and could be an effective and safer option for the treatment of convulsive status epilepticus (CSE). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety profile of intravenous levetiracetam and phenytoin as second-line treatment agents in children with CSE and acute repetitive seizures (ARS).

METHOD

Two hundred seventy-seven patients aged between 1 month and 18 years who received intravenous levetiracetam or phenytoin as a second-line AED with the diagnosis of CSE or ARS were retrospectively evaluated. Drug efficacy was defined as control of seizures without the need for any additional medication after completion of the infusion and no recurrence in the following 12 h. The primary outcome was drug efficacy. The secondary outcomes included application of an additional second-line AED, induction of anesthesia, and admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and drug-related adverse reactions.

RESULTS

No differences were found between the two treatment groups with regard to patient characteristics and seizure type. The efficacy of levetiracetam was higher than that of phenytoin (77.6% vs 57.7%, P = 0.011) in children with CSE. There was no significant difference between the efficacy rates of levetiracetam and phenytoin for ARS (55.8% vs 58.8%, P = 0.791). Overall, drug efficacy was 70.9% for levetiracetam and 58.1% for phenytoin (P = 0.048). For CSE, the need for additional second-line treatment, anesthesia induction, and ICU admission was higher in the phenytoin group (P = 0.001, P = 0.038, P = 0.02, respectively). Drug-related adverse reactions were more frequent in the phenytoin group than the levetiracetam group (23.3% vs 1.4%; P < 0.001). The most common adverse reaction in the phenytoin group was hypotension. Phenytoin-related anaphylaxis was detected in one patient. No serious adverse effects related to levetiracetam were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous levetiracetam seems as effective as intravenous phenytoin in emergency treatment of children with ARS and more effective for CSE in stopping the seizure with less risk of recurrence. Levetiracetam has fewer cardiovascular side effects and has a safer profile than phenytoin. Intravenous levetiracetam is a favorable option as a first second-line AED for pediatric seizures.

Pharmacokinetic Monitoring of Levetiracetam in Portuguese Refractory Epileptic Patients: Effect of Gender, Weight and Concomitant Therapy

Levetiracetam is a second-generation antiepileptic drug, widely used in the treatment of focal and generalized epilepsy due to its pharmacokinetic and safety profiles. Its pharmacokinetic monitoring is ascribed as useful to personalize its dosing regimen. The aim of the present study was to describe, for the first time, the pharmacokinetics of levetiracetam in Portuguese refractory epileptic patients. Therefore, a retrospective study was carried out on 65 Portuguese refractory epileptic patients (pharmacokinetic study: 48; validation study: 17) admitted to the Refractory Epilepsy Centre of the Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal. The pharmacokinetic parameters of levetiracetam were estimated by applying a one-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination analysis. Male patients showed higher distribution volume (Vd/F) and oral clearance (CL/F) than female patients (median Vd/F: 52.40 L in males and 38.60 L in females, p = 0.011; median CL/F: 4.71 L/h in males and 3.91 L/h in females, p = 0.028). Higher values of Vd/F (p = 0.026) and CL/F (p = 0.003) were also found in overweight patients relative to normal weight and obese patients. Carbamazepine was the co-administered antiepileptic drug that mostly affected the pharmacokinetics of levetiracetam, increasing both Vd/F (61.30 L with carbamazepine and 39.10 L without carbamazepine, p = 0.007) and CL/F (6.71 L/h with carbamazepine and 3.91 L/h without carbamazepine, p < 0.001). The pharmacokinetics of levetiracetam was affected by gender, body mass index, and co-administration of carbamazepine. This study highlights the impact of several factors on the CL/ and Vd/F of levetiracetam when administered to refractory epileptic patients. The importance of its pharmacokinetic monitoring in clinical pharmacy stands out, thereby enabling the optimization of antiepileptic drug therapy.

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.

Randomized open-label trial of intravenous brivaracetam versus lorazepam for acute treatment of increased seizure activity

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the present trial was to assess efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) brivaracetam (BRV) vs. lorazepam (LZP) in patients with epilepsy undergoing evaluation in an epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) who experienced seizures requiring acute treatment.

METHODS

This was a phase 2, open-label, randomized, active-control, proof-of-concept trial (EP0087; NCT03021018). Patients (18-70 years) admitted to EMU were randomized 1:1:1 to single-dose bolus IV LZP (dose per investigator's practice), IV BRV 100 mg, or IV BRV 200 mg. Trial medication had to be administered within 30 min of qualifying seizure. Primary efficacy outcome was time to next seizure (clinical observation with electroencephalogram [EEG] confirmation) or to rescue medication use within 12 h of trial medication administration. Secondary outcomes included seizure freedom and rescue medication use within 12 h of trial medication administration. Safety and tolerability outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

Overall, 46 patients were randomized, and 45 received trial medication for a qualifying seizure. Patients in the LZP arm had doses from 1 to 4 mg (median: 1 mg). Eleven of 45 patients had a seizure within 12 h of trial medication administration (LZP 5/15 [median time to next seizure: 5.55 h], BRV 100 mg 3/15 [5.97 h], BRV 200 mg 3/15 [3.60 h]). No patients received additional rescue medication to control their qualifying seizure. Most patients were seizure-free over 12 h (LZP 9/15 [60.0%], BRV 100 mg 12/15 [80.0%], BRV 200 mg 12/15 [80.0%]). Rescue medication use within 12 h was numerically higher for LZP (6/15 [40.0%]) vs. BRV 100 mg (1/15 [6.7%]) and vs. BRV 200 mg (2/15 [13.3%]). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 5/16 (31.3%), 6/15 (40.0%), and 3/15 (20.0%) of LZP, BRV 100 mg, and BRV 200 mg patients; one LZP patient had a serious TEAE (seizure cluster). Most common TEAEs (≥10% of patients) were sedation and somnolence with LZP, and dizziness, headache, and nausea with BRV.

SIGNIFICANCE

Intravenous LZP, IV BRV 100 mg, and IV BRV 200 mg showed similar efficacy in controlling acute seizure activity in the EMU. Treatment-emergent adverse events were as expected for each medication. Although this trial should be interpreted with caution because of small patient numbers, it suggests a possible role of BRV in the acute treatment of increased seizure activity.

Levetiracetam vs. Fosphenytoin for Second-Line Treatment of Status Epilepticus: Propensity Score Matching Analysis Using a Nationwide Inpatient Database

Objective: Status epilepticus is a major emergency condition. The choice of antiepileptic drugs for second-line treatment after benzodiazepine remains controversial, including levetiracetam vs. fosphenytoin. We compare the safety of intravenous levetiracetam and fosphenytoin as a second-line treatment in patients with status epilepticus using a nationwide database.

Methods: An observational study conducted with the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination inpatient database identified adult patients who had been admitted for status epilepticus and who had received intravenous diazepam on the day of admission from March 1, 2011 to March 31, 2018. Patients who received intravenous levetiracetam on the day of admission were defined as the levetiracetam group and those who received intravenous fosphenytoin on the day of admission were defined as the fosphenytoin group. Propensity score matching was performed to compare outcomes obtained for the levetiracetam and fosphenytoin groups.

Results: The analysis examined data of 5,667 patients. Overall, 1,403 (25%) patients received levetiracetam; 4,264 (75%) received fosphenytoin. One-to-one propensity score matching created 1,363 matched pairs. No significant difference was found in in-hospital mortality (5.2 vs. 5.1%; odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.73–1.46). The proportion of vasopressor use on the day of admission was significantly lower for the levetiracetam group than for the fosphenytoin group (3.2 vs. 4.9%; odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.43–0.92). No significant difference was found in other secondary outcomes including total hospitalization cost.

Conclusion: Levetiracetam was related to significantly reduced vasopressor use on the day of admission than that found for fosphenytoin, in adult status epilepticus.

Efficacy, Safety, and Economics of Intravenous Levetiracetam for Status Epilepticus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

To evaluate efficacy, safety, and economics profiles of intravenous levetiracetam (LEV) for status epilepticus (SE).

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, and OpenGrey.eu for eligible studies published from inception to June 12^th 2019. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effect model to calculate odds ratio (OR) of included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with RevMan 5.3 software.

Results

A total of 478 studies were obtained. Five systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses, 9 RCTs, 1 non-randomized trial, and 27 case series/reports and 1 economic study met the inclusion criteria. Five SRs indicated no statistically significant difference in rates of seizure cessation when LEV was compared with lorazepam (LOR), phenytoin (PHT), or valproate (VPA). Pooled results of included RCTs indicated no statistically significant difference in seizure cessation when LEV was compared with LOR [OR = 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 2.92], PHT (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.27), and VPA (OR = 1.47, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.67); and no statistically significant difference in seizure freedom within 24 h compared with LOR [OR = 1.83, 95% CI 0.57 to 5.90] and PHT (OR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.87). Meanwhile, LEV did not increase the risk of mortality during hospitalization compared with LOR (OR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.39), PHT (OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.10), VPA (OR = 1.28, 95% CI 0.32 to 5.07), and placebo (plus clonazepam, OR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.38). LEV had lower need for artificial ventilation (OR = 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.92) and a lower risk of hypotension (OR = 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.84) compared to LOR. A trend of lower risk of hypotension and higher risk of agitation was found when LEV was compared with PHT. Case series and case report studies indicated psychiatric and behavioral adverse events of LEV. Cost-effectiveness evaluations indicated LEV as the most cost-effective non-benzodiazepines anti-epileptic drug (AED).

Conclusions

LEV has a similar efficacy as LOR, PHT, and VPA for SE, but a lower need for ventilator assistance and risk of hypotension, thus can be used as a second-line treatment for SE. However, more well-conducted studies to confirm the role of intravenous LEV for SE are still needed.

Levetiracetam versus phenytoin for the treatment of established status epilepticus: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam and phenytoin for the treatment of established status epilepticus.

METHODS

In this systematic review, we searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases from their inception with no language restrictions until May 8, 2019 and updated on February 5, 2020, for randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam and phenytoin for the treatment of established status epilepticus. A Meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the risk ratio (RR) using random-effects models.

RESULTS

We identified 7 trials with a total of 1028 participants. Levetiracetam was not associated with an increased rate of clinical seizure cessation within 60 min compared with phenytoin (RR, 1.02; 95 %CI, 0.92-1.13; I² = 3%; 60.0 % [309/515] vs 59.3 % [275/463];12 more events [95 % CI, -48 to 77] per 1000 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Results were similar in the subgroup analysis of adults and children. The sample size met the optimum size in trial sequential analysis. There were also no statistically significant effects on good functional outcome (RR, 1.05; 95 % CI, 0.90-1.23), admission to critical care (RR, 1.09; 95 % CI, 0.95-1.24), or all-cause mortality (RR, 1.09; 95 % CI, 0.55-2.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence suggested that levetiracetam was not significantly superior to phenytoin in seizure cessation in patients with established status epilepticus.

Changes in Real-world Practice Patterns of Antiepileptic Drugs for Status Epilepticus: A Nationwide Observational Study in Japan

Intravenous (i.v.) phenytoin/fosphenytoin is recommended as the second-line therapy of antiepileptic drugs in patients with status epilepticus (SE). i.v. Levetiracetam is regarded as an effective and safe equivalent with i.v. phenytoin/fosphenytoin. However, i.v. levetiracetam is not covered by public health insurance for SE in most countries. For this study, we performed the real-world practice pattern survey of antiepileptic drugs for status epilepticus using the nationwide inpatient database. We used the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination inpatient database in Japan and identified all cases of emergency admission attributable to status epilepticus from March 2011 through March 2018. We described the patient characteristics and practice pattern of antiepileptic drugs. The analysis conducted for this study examined 31,472 cases. As the second-line therapy, the use of i.v. levetiracetam increased rapidly from 2016; 35% of cases received i.v. levetiracetam in 2017. By contrast, the use of i.v. phenytoin/fosphenytoin decreased from 2016. In-hospital mortality decreased year-by-year. No year-by-year change was observed for deaths within 24 h, length of hospital stay, drug-induced hepatitis, or drug-induced eruption. Although the use of levetiracetam for treatment of SE is not compensated by public health insurance in Japan, i.v. levetiracetam use is increasing dramatically as the second-line SE therapy. We propose that health insurance coverage be extended to include i.v. levetiracetam treatment for SE.

Update on Antiepileptic Drugs 2019

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article is an update from the article on antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy published in the last Continuum issue on epilepsy and is intended to cover the vast majority of agents currently available to the neurologist in the management of patients with epilepsy. Treatment of epilepsy starts with AED monotherapy. Knowledge of the spectrum of efficacy, clinical pharmacology, and modes of use for individual AEDs is essential for optimal treatment for epilepsy. This article addresses AEDs individually, focusing on key pharmacokinetic characteristics, indications, and modes of use.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since the previous version of this article was published, three new AEDs, brivaracetam, cannabidiol, and stiripentol, have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and ezogabine was removed from the market because of decreased use as a result of bluish skin pigmentation and concern over potential retinal toxicity.Older AEDs are effective but have tolerability and pharmacokinetic disadvantages. Several newer AEDs have undergone comparative trials demonstrating efficacy equal to and tolerability at least equal to or better than older AEDs as first-line therapy. The list includes lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, levetiracetam, topiramate, zonisamide, and lacosamide. Pregabalin was found to be less effective than lamotrigine. Lacosamide, pregabalin, and eslicarbazepine have undergone successful trials of conversion to monotherapy. Other newer AEDs with a variety of mechanisms of action are suitable for adjunctive therapy. Most recently, the FDA adopted a policy that a drug's efficacy as adjunctive therapy in adults can be extrapolated to efficacy in monotherapy. In addition, efficacy in adults can be extrapolated for efficacy in children 4 years of age and older. Both extrapolations require data demonstrating that an AED has equivalent pharmacokinetics between its original approved use and its extrapolated use. In addition, the safety of the drug in pediatric patients has to be demonstrated in clinical studies that can be open label. Rational AED combinations should avoid AEDs with unfavorable pharmacokinetic interactions or pharmacodynamic interactions related to mechanism of action.

SUMMARY

Knowledge of AED pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and tolerability profiles facilitates the choice of appropriate AED therapy for patients with epilepsy.

Levetiracetam and brivaracetam: a review of evidence from clinical trials and clinical experience

Until the early 1990s, a limited number of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were available. Since then, a large variety of new AEDs have been developed and introduced, several of them offering new modes of action. One of these new AED families is described and reviewed in this article. Levetiracetam (LEV) and brivaracetam (BRV) are pyrrolidone derivate compounds binding at the presynaptic SV2A receptor site and are thus representative of AEDs with a unique mode of action. LEV was extensively investigated in randomized controlled trials and has a very promising efficacy both in focal and generalized epilepsies. Its pharmacokinetic profile is favorable and LEV does not undergo clinically relevant interactions. Adverse reactions comprise mainly asthenia, somnolence, and behavioral symptoms. It has now been established as a first-line antiepileptic drug. BRV has been recently introduced as an adjunct antiepileptic drug in focal epilepsy with a similarly promising pharmacokinetic profile and possibly increased tolerability concerning psychiatric adverse events. This review summarizes the essential preclinical and clinical data of LEV and BRV that is currently available and includes the experiences at a large tertiary referral epilepsy center.

Is it a Tie at This Point in the Game? Efficacy of Levetiracetam and Phenytoin for the Second-Line Treatment of Convulsive Status Epilepticus

Levetiracetam Versus Phenytoin for Second-Line Treatment of Pediatric Convulsive Status Epilepticus (EcLiPSE): A Multicentre, Open-Label, Randomized Trial

Lyttle MD, Rainford NEA, Gamble C, Messahel S, Humphreys A, Woolfall K, Roper L, Nablet J, Lee ED, Potter S, Tate P, Iyer A, Evans V, Appleton RE. Lancet. 2019;393:2125-34. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30724-X.

Background:

Phenytoin is the recommended second-line intravenous anticonvulsant for treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus in the United Kingdom; however, some evidence suggests that levetiracetam could be an effective and safer alternative. This trial compared the efficacy and safety of phenytoin and levetiracetam for second-line management of pediatric convulsive status epilepticus.

Methods:

This open-label, randomized clinical trial was undertaken at 30 United Kingdom emergency departments at secondary and tertiary care centers. Participants aged 6 months to less than 18 years, with convulsive status epilepticus requiring second-line treatment, were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated randomization schedule to receive levetiracetam (40 mg/kg over 5 minutes) or phenytoin (20 mg/kg over at least 20 minutes), stratified by centre. The primary outcome was time from randomization to cessation of convulsive status epilepticus, analyzed in the modified intention-to-treat population (excluding those who did not require second-line treatment after randomization and those who did not provide consent). This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN22567894.

Findings:

Between July 17, 2015, and April 7, 2018, 1432 patients were assessed for eligibility. After exclusion of ineligible patients, 404 patients were randomly assigned. After exclusion of those who did not require second-line treatment and those who did not consent, 286 randomized participants were treated and had available data: 152 allocated to levetiracetam and 134 to phenytoin. Convulsive status epilepticus was terminated in 106 (70%) children in the levetiracetam group and in 86 (64%) in the phenytoin group. Median time from randomization to cessation of convulsive status epilepticus was 35 minutes (interquartile range: 20 to not assessable) in the levetiracetam group and 45 minutes (24 to not assessable) in the phenytoin group (hazard ratio: 1.20, 95% confidence interval: 0·91-1.60; P = .20). One participant who received levetiracetam followed by phenytoin died as a result of catastrophic cerebral edema unrelated to either treatment. One participant who received phenytoin had serious adverse reactions related to study treatment (hypotension considered to be immediately life-threatening [a serious adverse reaction] and increased focal seizures and decreased consciousness considered to be medically significant [a suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction]).

Interpretation:

Although levetiracetam was not significantly superior to phenytoin, the results, together with previously reported safety profiles and comparative ease of administration of levetiracetam, suggest it could be an appropriate alternative to phenytoin as the first-choice, second-line anticonvulsant in the treatment of pediatric convulsive status epilepticus.