Lessons from the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial

Controls, comparator arms, and designs for critical care comparative effectiveness research: It's complicated

BACKGROUND

Comparative effectiveness research is meant to determine which commonly employed medical interventions are most beneficial, least harmful, and/or most costly in a real-world setting. While the objectives for comparative effectiveness research are clear, the field has failed to develop either a uniform definition of comparative effectiveness research or an appropriate set of recommendations to provide standards for the design of critical care comparative effectiveness research trials, spurring controversy in recent years. The insertion of non-representative control and/or comparator arm subjects into critical care comparative effectiveness research trials can threaten trial subjects' safety. Nonetheless, the broader scientific community does not always appreciate the importance of defining and maintaining critical care practices during a trial, especially when vulnerable, critically ill populations are studied. Consequently, critical care comparative effectiveness research trials sometimes lack properly constructed control or active comparator arms altogether and/or suffer from the inclusion of "unusual critical care" that may adversely affect groups enrolled in one or more arms. This oversight has led to critical care comparative effectiveness research trial designs that impair informed consent, confound interpretation of trial results, and increase the risk of harm for trial participants.

METHODS/EXAMPLES

We propose a novel approach to performing critical care comparative effectiveness research trials that mandates the documentation of critical care practices prior to trial initiation. We also classify the most common types of critical care comparative effectiveness research trials, as well as the most frequent errors in trial design. We present examples of these design flaws drawn from past and recently published trials as well as examples of trials that avoided those errors. Finally, we summarize strategies employed successfully in well-designed trials, in hopes of suggesting a comprehensive standard for the field.

CONCLUSION

Flawed critical care comparative effectiveness research trial designs can lead to unsound trial conclusions, compromise informed consent, and increase risks to research subjects, undermining the major goal of comparative effectiveness research: to inform current practice. Well-constructed control and comparator arms comprise indispensable elements of critical care comparative effectiveness research trials, key to improving the trials' safety and to generating trial results likely to improve patient outcomes in clinical practice.

Valproate in status epilepticus: Correlation between loading dose, serum levels, and clinical response

Background and purpose

Intravenous valproate (VPA) is an established treatment of status epilepticus (SE), but optimal loading dose was not fully assessed. We aimed at analyzing the correlation between VPA loading dose and subsequent plasma levels with clinical response in SE.

Methods

This was a retrospective study in one referral center of all consecutive VPA‐naïve SE episodes treated with VPA between January 2013 and June 2019, in which total VPA trough plasma levels after intravenous loading dose were available. Response to VPA, defined as last antiseizure medication introduced before SE resolution (without the need for additional treatment), was correlated with VPA loading dose and trough level. Correlations were adjusted for other SE characteristics.

Results

Among 128 SE episodes, 53 (41%) responded to VPA. Median VPA loading dose was 25.2 mg/kg (range, 7–58 mg/kg). Loading doses and total plasma levels were not associated with the probability of response or mortality. Correcting for other possible confounders (number of previously tried treatment, demographics, SE severity) did not alter these findings. Only 3.8% of SE episodes that responded to VPA received >30 mg/kg.

Conclusions

A high loading dose (>30 mg/kg) is not associated with a greater response rate in patients with SE. Therefore, it seems to bring little benefit. If confirmed in further studies, a dosage of 25–30 mg/kg appears adequate in SE.

Modeling current practices in critical care comparative effectiveness research

Objective: To determine whether contemporaneous practices are adequately represented in recent critical care comparative effectiveness research studies. Design: All critical care comparative effectiveness research trials published in the New England Journal of Medicine from April 2019 to March 2020 were identified. To examine studies published in other high impact medical journals during the same period, such trials were subsequently also identified in the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet. All cited sources were reviewed, and the medical literature was searched to find studies describing contemporary practices. Then, the designated control group or the comparable therapies studied were examined to determine if they represented contemporaneous critical care practices as described in the medical literature. Results: Twenty-five of 332 randomised clinical trials published in these three journals during this 1-year period described critical care comparative effectiveness research that met our inclusion criteria. Seventeen characterised current practices before enrolment (using surveys, observational studies and guidelines) and then incorporated current practices into one or more study arm. In the other eight, usual care arms appeared insufficient. Four of these trials randomly assigned patients to one of two fixed approaches at either end of a range of usually titrated care. However, due to randomisation, different subgroups within each arm received care that was inappropriate for their specific clinical conditions. In the other four of these trials, common practices influencing treatment choice were not reflected in the trial design, despite a prior effort to characterise usual care. Conclusion: One-third of critical care comparative effectiveness research trials published in widely read medical journals during a recent year did not include a designated control arm or comparable therapies representative of contemporary practices. Failure to incorporate contemporary practices into critical care comparative effectiveness trials appears to be a widespread design weakness.

Super-Refractory Status Epilepticus in Children: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

To characterize the pediatric super-refractory status epilepticus population by describing treatment variability in super-refractory status epilepticus patients and comparing relevant clinical characteristics, including outcomes, between super-refractory status epilepticus, and nonsuper-refractory status epilepticus patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study with prospectively collected data between June 2011 and January 2019.

SETTING

Seventeen academic hospitals in the United States.

PATIENTS

We included patients 1 month to 21 years old presenting with convulsive refractory status epilepticus. We defined super-refractory status epilepticus as continuous or intermittent seizures lasting greater than or equal to 24 hours following initiation of continuous infusion and divided the cohort into super-refractory status epilepticus and nonsuper-refractory status epilepticus groups.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We identified 281 patients (157 males) with a median age of 4.1 years (1.3-9.5 yr), including 31 super-refractory status epilepticus patients. Compared with nonsuper-refractory status epilepticus group, super-refractory status epilepticus patients had delayed initiation of first nonbenzodiazepine-antiseizure medication (149 min [55-491.5 min] vs 62 min [33.3-120.8 min]; p = 0.030) and of continuous infusion (495 min [177.5-1,255 min] vs 150 min [90-318.5 min]; p = 0.003); prolonged seizure duration (120 hr [58-368 hr] vs 3 hr [1.4-5.9 hr]; p < 0.001) and length of ICU stay (17 d [9.5-40 d] vs [1.8-8.8 d]; p < 0.001); more medical complications (18/31 [58.1%] vs 55/250 [22.2%] patients; p < 0.001); lower return to baseline function (7/31 [22.6%] vs 182/250 [73.4%] patients; p < 0.001); and higher mortality (4/31 [12.9%] vs 5/250 [2%]; p = 0.010). Within the super-refractory status epilepticus group, status epilepticus resolution was attained with a single continuous infusion in 15 of 31 patients (48.4%), two in 10 of 31 (32.3%), and three or more in six of 31 (19.4%). Most super-refractory status epilepticus patients (30/31, 96.8%) received midazolam as first choice. About 17 of 31 patients (54.8%) received additional treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Super-refractory status epilepticus patients had delayed initiation of nonbenzodiazepine antiseizure medication treatment, higher number of medical complications and mortality, and lower return to neurologic baseline than nonsuper-refractory status epilepticus patients, although these associations were not adjusted for potential confounders. Treatment approaches following the first continuous infusion were heterogeneous, reflecting limited information to guide clinical decision-making in super-refractory status epilepticus.

Early Exposure of Fosphenytoin, Levetiracetam, and Valproic Acid After High-Dose Intravenous Administration in Young Children With Benzodiazepine-Refractory Status Epilepticus

Fosphenytoin (FOS) and its active form, phenytoin (PHT), levetiracetam (LEV), and valproic acid (VPA) are commonly used second-line treatments of status epilepticus. However, limited information is available regarding LEV and VPA concentrations following high intravenous doses, particularly in young children. The Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial, a blinded, comparative effectiveness study of FOS, LEV, and VPA for benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus provided an opportunity to investigate early drug concentrations. Patients aged ≥2 years who continued to seizure despite receiving adequate doses of benzodiazepines were randomly assigned to FOS, LEV, or VPA infused over 10 minutes. A sparse blood-sampling approach was used, with up to 2 samples collected per patient within 2 hours following drug administration. The objective of this work was to report early drug exposure of PHT, LEV, and VPA and plasma protein binding of PHT and VPA. Twenty-seven children with median (interquartile range) age of 4 (2.5-6.5) years were enrolled. The total plasma concentrations ranged from 69 to 151.3 μg/mL for LEV, 11.3 to 26.7 μg/mL for PHT and 126 to 223 μg/mL for VPA. Free fraction ranged from 4% to 19% for PHT and 17% to 51% for VPA. This is the first report in young children of LEV concentrations with convulsive status epilepticus as well as VPA concentrations after a 40 mg/kg dose. Several challenges limited patient enrollment and blood sampling. Additional studies with a larger sample size are required to evaluate the exposure-response relationships in this emergent condition.

A Theoretical Paradigm for Evaluating Risk-Benefit of Status Epilepticus Treatment

Aggressive treatment of status epilepticus with anesthetic drugs can provide rapid seizure control, but it might lead to serious medical complications and worse outcomes. Using a decision analysis approach, this concise review provides a framework for individualized decision making about aggressive and nonaggressive treatment in status epilepticus. The authors propose and review the most relevant parameters guiding the risk-benefit analysis of treatment aggressiveness in status epilepticus and present real-world-based case examples to illustrate how these tools could be used at the bedside and serve to guide future research in refractory status epilepticus treatment.

The association of patient weight and dose of fosphenytoin, levetiracetam, and valproic acid with treatment success in status epilepticus

The Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial was a blinded, comparative-effectiveness study of fosphenytoin, levetiracetam, and valproic acid in benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus. The primary outcome was clinical seizure cessation and increased responsiveness without additional anticonvulsant medications. Weight-based dosing was capped at 75 kg. Hence, patients weighing >75 kg received a lower mg/kg dose. Logistic regression models were developed in 235 adults to determine the association of weight (≤ or >75 kg, ≤ or >90 kg), sex, treatment, and weight-normalized dose with the primary outcome and solely seizure cessation. The primary outcome was achieved in 45.1% and 42.5% of those ≤75 kg and >75 kg, respectively. Using univariate analyses, the likelihood of success for those >75 kg (odds ratio [OR] = 0.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.54-1.51) or >90 kg (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.42-1.66) was not statistically different compared with those ≤75 kg or ≤90 kg, respectively. Similarly, other predictors were not significantly associated with primary outcome or clinical seizure cessation. Our findings suggest that doses, capped at 75 kg, likely resulted in concentrations greater than those needed for outcome. Studies that include drug concentrations and heavier individuals are needed to confirm these findings.

Medical management of status epilepticus: Emergency room to intensive care unit

In convulsive status epilepticus (SE), achieving seizure control within the first 1-2 hours after onset is a significant determinant of outcome. Treatment is also more likely to work and be cost effective the earlier it is given. Initial first aid measures should be accompanied by establishing intravenous access if possible and administering thiamine and glucose if required. Calling for help will support efficient management, and also the potential for video-recording the events. This can be done as a best interests investigation to inform later management, provided adequate steps to protect data are taken. There is high quality evidence supporting the use of benzodiazepines for initial treatment. Midazolam (buccal, intranasal or intramuscular) has the most evidence where there is no intravenous access, with the practical advantages of administration outweighing the slightly slower onset of action. Either lorazepam or diazepam are suitable IV agents. Speed of administration and adequate initial dosing are probably more important than choice of drug. Although only phenytoin (and its prodrug fosphenytoin) and phenobarbitone are licensed for established SE, a now considerable body of evidence and international consensus supports the utility of both levetiracetam and valproate as options in established status. Both also have the advantage of being well tolerated as maintenance treatment, and possibly a lower risk of serious adverse events. Two adequately powered randomized open studies in children have recently reported, supporting the use of levetiracetam as an alterantive to phenytoin. The results of a large double blind study also including valproate are also imminent, and together likely to change practice in benzodiazepine-resistant SE.