The efficacy of different kinds of intravenously applied antiepileptic drugs in the treatment of status epilepticus. How can it be determined?

Efficacy of Perampanel in Refractory and Super-Refractory Status Epilepticus with Suspected Inflammatory Etiology: A Case Series

(1) Background: Increasing evidence supports the anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective role of perampanel (PER), mediated by decreased expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines and by interference with apoptosis processes. Therefore, the use of PER to treat status epilepticus (SE) with suspected inflammatory etiology is appealing and deserves further investigation. (2) Methods: We retrospectively analyzed seven patients (five F, two M; median age: 62 years) with refractory and super-refractory SE due to a probable or defined inflammatory etiology and treated with PER. (3) Results: PER was administered as the third (4/7) or fourth drug (3/7), with a median loading dose of 32 mg/day (range: 16-36 mg/day) and a median maintenance dose of 10 mg/day (range: 4-12 mg/day). In five cases, SE was focal, while in two patients, it was generalized. SE was caused by systemic inflammation in three patients, while in the other four subjects, it was recognized to have an autoimmune etiology. SE resolution was observed after PER administration in all cases, particularly within 24 h in the majority of patients (4/7, 57.1%). (4) Conclusions: Our data support the efficacy of PER in treating SE when first- and second-line ASMs have failed and suggest a possible earlier use in SE cases that are due to inflammatory/autoimmune etiology.

How much refractory is 'refractory status epilepticus'? A retrospective study of treatment strategies and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate whether differences in clinical outcomes exist according to treatments received and seizure activity resolution in patients with refractory status epilepticus (RSE).

METHODS

Consecutive episodes of non-hypoxic status epilepticus (SE) in patients ≥ 14 years old were included. Episodes of RSE were stratified in: (i) SE persistent despite treatment with first-line therapy with benzodiazepines and one second-line treatment with antiseizure medications (ASMs), but responsive to successive treatments with ASMs (RSE-rASMs); (ii) SE persistent despite treatment with first-line therapy with benzodiazepines and successive treatment with one or more second-line ASMs, but responsive to anesthetic drugs [RSE-rGA (general anesthesia)]. Study endpoints were mortality during hospitalization and worsening of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at discharge.

RESULTS

Status epilepticus was responsive in 298 (54.1%), RSE-rASMs in 152 (27.6%), RSE-rGA in 46 (8.3%), and super-refractory (SRSE) in 55 (10.0%) out of 551 included cases. Death during hospitalization occurred in 98 (17.8%) and worsening of mRS at discharge in 287 (52.1%) cases. Multivariable analyses revealed increased odds of in-hospital mortality with RSE-rGA (odds ratio [OR] 3.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-7.35) and SRSE (OR 3.83, 95%. CI 1.73-8.47), and increased odds of worsening of mRS with RSE-rASMs (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.28-3.31), RSE-rGA (OR 4.44, 95% CI 1.97-10.00), and SRSE (OR 13.81, 95% CI 5.34-35.67).

CONCLUSIONS

In RSE, varying degrees of refractoriness may be defined and suit better the continuum spectrum of disease severity and the heterogeneity of SE burden and prognosis.

Perspective: Vagal nerve stimulation in the treatment of new-onset refractory status epilepticus

Introduction

Resistance to drug therapy is a major hurdle in new-onset refractory status epilepticus (NORSE) treatment and there is urgent need to develop new treatment approaches. Non-drug approaches such as neuromodulation offer significant benefits and should be investigated as new adjunct treatment modalities. An important unanswered question is whether desynchronizing networks by vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) may improve seizure control in NORSE patients.

Main text

We present a summary of published NORSE cases treated with VNS and our own data, discuss possible mechanisms of action, review VNS implantation timing, stimulation setting titration protocols and outcomes. Further, we propose avenues for future research.

Discussion

We advocate for consideration of VNS for NORSE both in early and late stages of the presentation and hypothesize a possible additional benefit from implantation in the acute phase of the disease. This should be pursued in the context of a clinical trial, harmonizing inclusion criteria, accuracy of documentation and treatment protocols. A study planned within our UK-wide NORSE-UK network will answer the question if VNS may confer benefits in aborting unremitting status epilepticus, modulate ictogenesis and reduce long-term chronic seizure burden.

Pharmacotherapy for Nonconvulsive Seizures and Nonconvulsive Status Epilepticus

Most seizures in critically ill patients are nonconvulsive. A significant number of neurological and medical conditions can be complicated by nonconvulsive seizures (NCSs) and nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE), with brain infections, hemorrhages, global hypoxia, sepsis, and recent neurosurgery being the most prominent etiologies. Prolonged NCSs and NCSE can lead to adverse neurological outcomes. Early recognition requires a high degree of suspicion and rapid and appropriate duration of continuous electroencephalogram (cEEG) monitoring. Although high quality research evaluating treatment with antiseizure medications and long-term outcome is still lacking, it is probable that expeditious pharmacological management of NCSs and NCSE may prevent refractoriness and further neurological injury. There is limited evidence on pharmacotherapy for NCSs and NCSE, although a few clinical trials encompassing both convulsive and NCSE have demonstrated similar efficacy of different intravenous (IV) antiseizure medications (ASMs), including levetiracetam, valproate, lacosamide and fosphenytoin. The choice of specific ASMs lies on tolerability and safety since critically ill patients frequently have impaired renal and/or hepatic function as well as hematological/hemodynamic lability. Treatment frequently requires more than one ASM and occasionally escalation to IV anesthetic drugs. When multiple ASMs are required, combining different mechanisms of action should be considered. There are several enteral ASMs that could be used when IV ASM options have been exhausted. Refractory NCSE is not uncommon, and its treatment requires a very judicious selection of ASMs aiming at reducing seizure burden along with management of the underlying condition.

Intravenous brivaracetam in status epilepticus: A multicentric retrospective study in Italy

PURPOSE

to evaluate the use, effectiveness, and adverse events of intravenous brivaracetam (BRV) in status epilepticus (SE).

METHODS

a retrospective multicentric study involving 24 Italian neurology units was performed from March 2018 to June 2020. A shared case report form was used across participating centres to limit biases of retrospective data collection. Diagnosis and classification of SE followed the 2015 ILAE proposal. We considered a trial with BRV a success when it was the last administered drug prior the clinical and/or EEG resolution of seizures, and the SE did not recur during hospital observation. In addition, we considered cases with early response, defined as SE resolved within 6 h after BRV administration.

RESULTS

56 patients were included (mean age 62 years; 57 % male). A previous diagnosis of epilepsy was present in 21 (38 %). Regarding SE etiology classification 46 % were acute symptomatic, 18 % remote and 16 % progressive symptomatic. SE episodes with prominent motor features were the majority (80 %). BRV was administered as first drug after benzodiazepine failure in 21 % episodes, while it was used as the second or the third (or more) drug in the 38 % and 38 % of episodes respectively. The median loading dose was 100 mg (range 50-300 mg). BRV was effective in 32 cases (57 %). An early response was documented in 22 patients (39 % of the whole sample). The use of the BRV within 6 h from SE onset was independently associated to an early SE resolution (OR 32; 95 % CI 3.39-202; p = 0.002). No severe treatment emergent adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSION

BRV proved to be useful and safe for the treatment of SE. Time to seizures resolution appears shorter when it is administered in the early phases of SE.

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).

Clinical outcomes and treatments effectiveness in status epilepticus resolved by antiepileptic drugs: A five-year observational study

Objective

To evaluate clinical outcomes and treatment effectiveness of status epilepticus finally resolved by nonbenzodiazepine antiepileptic drugs (AEDs).

Methods

All consecutive SE episodes observed from September 1, 2013, to September 1, 2018, and resolved by AEDs were considered. Diagnosis and classification of SE followed the 2015 ILAE proposal. Nonconvulsive status (NCSE) diagnosis was confirmed according to the Salzburg EEG criteria. The modified Rankin Scale and deaths at 30 days from onset were used to evaluate outcomes.

Results

A total of 277 status episodes (mean age 71 years; 61% female) were treated and resolved by antiepileptic drugs after 382 treatment trials. 68% of the SE resolved after AED use as first/second treatment line, while subsequent trials with AEDs gave an additional 32% resolution. A return to baseline conditions was observed in 48% of the patients, while overall mortality was 19% without significant changes across the study years. Mortality was higher in NCSE than in convulsive SE (22.5% vs 12.9%; P < .05), while mortality did not differ in SE episodes resolved by a first/second AED trial (17.2%) versus SE resolved by successive treatment trials (18.9%). The resolution rate of intravenous AEDs was 82% for valproate, 77% for lacosamide, 71% for phenytoin, and 62% for levetiracetam. No significant differences were found in head-to-head comparison, but for the valproate-levetiracetam one that was related to NCSE episodes in which valproate resulted to be effective in 86% of the trials while levetiracetam in 62% (P < .002).

Significance

A high short-term mortality, stable over time, was observed in SE despite resolution of seizures, especially in SE with nonconvulsive semiology. Comparative AED efficacy showed no significant differences except for higher resolution rate for valproate versus levetiracetam in NCSE.

Vagus nerve stimulation in refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus - A systematic review

RATIONALE

Refractory status epilepticus (RSE) is the persistence of status epilepticus despite second-line treatment. Super-refractory SE (SRSE) is characterized by ongoing status despite 48 h of anaesthetic treatment. Due to the high case fatality in RSE of 16-39%, off label treatments without strong evidence of efficacy in RSE are often administered. In single case-reports and small case series totalling 28 patients, acute implantation of VNS in RSE was associated with 76% and 26% success rate in generalized and focal RSE respectively. We performed an updated systematic review of the literature on efficacy of VNS in RSE/SRSE by including all reported patients.

METHODS

We systematically searched EMBASE, CENTRAL, Opengre.eu, and ClinicalTrials.gov, and PubMed databases to identify studies reporting the use of VNS for RSE and/or SRSE. We also searched conference abstracts from AES and ILAE meetings.

RESULTS

45 patients were identified in total of which 38 were acute implantations of VNS in RSE/SRSE. Five cases had VNS implantation for epilepsia partialis continua, one for refractory electrical status epilepticus in sleep and one for acute encephalitis with refractory repetitive focal seizures. Acute VNS implantation was associated with cessation of RSE/SRSE in 74% (28/38) of acute cases. Cessation did not occur in 18% (7/38) of cases and four deaths were reported (11%); all of them due to the underlying disease and unlikely related to VNS implantation. Median duration of the RSE/SRSE episode pre and post VNS implantation was 18 days (range: 3-1680 days) and 8 days (range: 3-84 days) respectively. Positive outcomes occurred in 82% (31/38) of cases.

CONCLUSION

VNS can interrupt RSE and SRSE in 74% of patients; data originate from reported studies classified as level IV and the risk for reporting bias is high. Further prospective studies are warranted to investigate acute VNS in RSE and SRSE.

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.

Levetiracetam circulating concentrations and response in status epilepticus

INTRODUCTION

Intravenous levetiracetam (LEV) is broadly used in the treatment of status epilepticus (SE). A loading dose is usually infused, aiming to reach quickly the range of plasma concentrations considered as therapeutic (12-46 mg/l). The aim of the study was to evaluate the response to LEV in SE, correlated exposure assessed by plasma concentration monitoring, as well as calculated exposure parameters.

MATERIALS & METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed a SE registry, including patients since 2015 with at least one available LEV plasma level measured less than 36 h after loading. A Bayesian maximum likelihood approach based on a population pharmacokinetic model was used to estimate LEV exposure parameters. We compared plasma levels and pharmacokinetics parameter estimates between responders and nonresponders. Therapeutic response was defined as SE cessation within 24 h following LEV introduction without a need for additional antiepileptic drug (AED).

RESULTS

We included 29 patients (45 plasma levels). Variability was salient in LEV loading doses (ranging between 17 and 38 mg/kg) and monitoring practice. There was no difference in median plasma concentrations (19.5 versus 21.5 mg/l; p = 0.71), median estimated LEV exposure (25.8 versus 37.0 mg/l; p = 0.61), peak (30.4 versus 41.5 mg/l; p = 0.36), or residual levels after loading dose (14.4 versus 20.5 mg/l; p = 0.07) between responders and nonresponders.

CONCLUSIONS

Levetiracetam exposure does not seem to differ significantly between responders and nonresponders; greater exposure was not associated with better outcome. Loading doses of 30 mg/kg seem, however, appropriate to quickly reach the target exposure level. The short LEV half-life makes standardized sampling measurement necessary to obtain directly interpretable LEV levels.

Intravenous lacosamide (LCM) in status epilepticus (SE): Weight-adjusted dose and efficacy

BACKGROUND

Some studies suggest higher efficacy of lacosamide (LCM) in status epilepticus (SE) with higher loading doses; however, this weight-adjusted dose has not been evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to evaluate the relationship between loading weight-adjusted dose and efficacy of LCM in SE.

METHODS

A group of patients with SE treated with LCM from Spanish hospitals was examined retrospectively. Demographic data, type of SE, etiology, response rate, last antiepileptic drug (AED) used, treatment line in which LCM was used, total loading dose, and weight-adjusted dose were collected.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-five cases of SE were collected; 87 (52.7%) patients had nonconvulsive SE. Mean age was 64.2 ± 17.2 and 60.6% (n = 100) were men. Regarding etiology, SE was considered as acute symptomatic in 85 (51.5%), remote symptomatic in 51 (30.9%), progressive symptomatic in 10 (6.1%), and cryptogenic in 19 (11.5%). Lacosamide was used as the third drug in 46.1%, and as a second option in 28%. In 115 patients, clonazepam had been used as the first option, and no benzodiazepines had been administered in the remaining 50. The median loading dose was 400 mg (100-600 mg), and the weight-adjusted dose was 5 mg/kg (3-6 mg/kg). The response rate was 63.3%, and 55.1% responded within the first 12 h. Efficacy was significantly higher in patients who had taken benzodiazepines at LCM loading doses >5.3 mg/kg (p = 0.006). This relationship was maintained independent of using other concomitant AEDs. However, if benzodiazepines were not taken, this relationship was not found.

CONCLUSIONS

In adults with benzodiazepine-resistant SE, the response rate to LCM was higher, with weight-adjusted doses above 5.3 mg/kg.

Evaluation of phenytoin serum levels following a loading dose in the acute hospital setting

PURPOSE

Due to the complex pharmacokinetic profiles of phenytoin (PHT) and fosphenytoin (FOS), achieving sustained, targeted serum PHT levels in the first day of use is challenging.

METHODS

A population based approach was used to analyze total serum PHT (tPHT) level within 2-24h of PHT/FOS loading with or without supplementary maintenance or additional loading doses among PHT-naïve patients in the acute hospital setting. Adequate tPHT serum level was defined as ≥20μg/mL.

RESULTS

Among 494 patients with 545 tPHT serum levels obtained in the first 2-24h after the loading dose (LD), tPHT serum levels of either

CONCLUSION

Close laboratory surveillance and PHT/FOS dose adjustments are recommended to ensure adequate and sustained tPHT serum levels early in treatment. Free serum PHT level is the preferred method of drug monitoring.

Collapse

Key Words

• Fosphenytoin
• Serum phenytoin level
• Status epilepticus

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Adolescent
• Adult
• Aged
• Aged, 80 and over
• Anticonvulsants/blood
• Anticonvulsants/therapeutic use
• Child
• Community Health Planning
• Epilepsy/blood
• Epilepsy/drug therapy
• Female
• Humans
• Male
• Middle Aged
• Phenytoin/blood
• Phenytoin/therapeutic use
• Retrospective Studies
• Statistics as Topic
• Young Adult

Collapse

Grants

• T32 ES007271 NIEHS NIH HHS
• TL1 TR002000 NCATS NIH HHS
• UL1 TR000042 NCATS NIH HHS
• UL1 TR002001 NCATS NIH HHS

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Olga Selioutski Department of Neurology, Strong Epilepsy Center, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA.
Katherine Grzesik Department of Biostatistics, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
Olga N Vasilyeva Department of Pharmacy, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
Ágúst Hilmarsson Landspitali University Hospital, Slettuvegi, Reykjavik, Iceland
A James Fessler Department of Neurology, Strong Epilepsy Center, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
Lynn Liu Department of Neurology, Strong Epilepsy Center, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
Robert A Gross Department of Neurology, Strong Epilepsy Center, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA

Collapse