Intravenous levetiracetam in critically ill children with status epilepticus or acute repetitive seizures

Japanese guidelines for treatment of pediatric status epilepticus - 2023

The updated definition of status epilepticus (SE) by the International League Against Epilepsy in 2015 included two critical time points (t1: at which the seizure should be regarded as an "abnormally prolonged seizure"; and t2: beyond which the ongoing seizure activity can pose risk of long-term consequences) to aid in diagnosis and management and highlights the importance of early treatment of SE more clearly than ever before. Although Japan has witnessed an increasing number of pre-hospital drug treatment as well as first- and second-line treatments, clinical issues have emerged regarding which drugs are appropriate. To address these clinical concerns, a revised version of the "Japanese Guidelines for the Treatment of Pediatric Status Epilepticus 2023" (GL2023) was published. For pre-hospital treatment, buccal midazolam is recommended. For in-hospital treatment, if an intravenous route is unobtainable, buccal midazolam is also recommended. If an intravenous route can be obtained, intravenous benzodiazepines such as midazolam, lorazepam, and diazepam are recommended. However, the rates of seizure cessation were reported to be the same among the three drugs, but respiratory depression was less frequent with lorazepam than with diazepam. For established SE, phenytoin/fosphenytoin and phenobarbital can be used for pediatric SE, and levetiracetam can be used in only adults in Japan. Coma therapy is recommended for refractory SE, with no recommended treatment for super-refractory SE. GL2023 lacks adequate recommendations for the treatment of nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE). Although electrographic seizure and electrographic SE may lead to brain damages, it remains unclear whether treatment of NCSE improves outcomes in children. We plan to address this issue in an upcoming edition of the guideline.

Positive Patient Postoperative Outcomes with Pharmacotherapy: A Narrative Review including Perioperative-Specialty Pharmacist Interviews

The influence of pharmacotherapy regimens on surgical patient outcomes is increasingly appreciated in the era of enhanced recovery protocols and institutional focus on reducing postoperative complications. Specifics related to medication selection, dosing, frequency of administration, and duration of therapy are evolving to optimize pharmacotherapeutic regimens for many enhanced recovery protocolized elements. This review provides a summary of recent pharmacotherapeutic strategies, including those configured within electronic health record (EHR) applications and functionalities, that are associated with the minimization of the frequency and severity of postoperative complications (POCs), shortened hospital length of stay (LOS), reduced readmission rates, and cost or revenue impacts. Further, it will highlight preventive pharmacotherapy regimens that are correlated with improved patient preparation, especially those related to surgical site infection (SSI), venous thromboembolism (VTE), nausea and vomiting (PONV), postoperative ileus (POI), and emergence delirium (PoD) as well as less commonly encountered POCs such as acute kidney injury (AKI) and atrial fibrillation (AF). The importance of interprofessional collaboration in all periprocedural phases, focusing on medication management through shared responsibilities for drug therapy outcomes, will be emphasized. Finally, examples of collaborative care through shared mental models of drug stewardship and non-medical practice agreements to improve operative throughput, reduce operative stress, and increase patient satisfaction are illustrated.

Comparative Efficacy of IV Phenytoin, IV Valproate, and IV Levetiracetam in Childhood Status Epilepticus

Background and Purpose

Status epilepticus (SE) is a common pediatric neurological emergency that requires immediate and vigorous management. Currently, phenytoin is the most common agent used in the setting of SE following benzodiazepine for further seizure prevention. Other drugs recently introduced for management of SE are valproic acid and levetiracetam.

Methods

This prospective randomized study included 150 pediatric patients admitted as SE. Patients were randomized into three equal groups (50 each) to receive one of the three anticonvulsants in addition to standard treatment. Patients were monitored in hospital regarding their vitals, time to regain consciousness, and seizure recurrence.

Results

At 24 hours seizures were controlled in 44 patients (88%) in phenytoin group, 39 patients (78%) in levetiracetam (LEV) group and 46 patients (92%) in valproate (VAL) group (p=0.115). The mean time to regain consciousness in phenytoin, LEV and VAL groups was 122.3±45.4, 120.8±42.8, and 75.0±30.7 minutes (mean±standard deviation) respectively. Patients in VAL group regained consciousness earlier than both phenytoin and LEV group patients (p<0.0001). At 3 months follow-up, seven (14.28%) out of 49 patients in phenytoin group, 14 (28.57%) out of 49 in LEV group and two (4%) out of 50 patients in VAL group had a seizure recurrence (p=0.0032).

Conclusions

In our study we found that both IV LEV and IV VAL safe and efficacious. The primary outcome, seizure recurrence at 24 hours, did not show a statistically significant difference in three groups (p>0.05). Also, seizure recurrence at 1 week did not reach a statistically significant difference. However, time to regain consciousness and seizure recurrence at 3 months was significantly less in VAL group (p<0.05).

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.

Clinical Effectiveness of Levetiracetam Compared to Fosphenytoin in the Treatment of Benzodiazepine Refractory Convulsive Status Epilepticus

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether levetiracetam is an alternative to fosphenytoin to control Benzodiazepine Refractory Status Epilepticus (BRSE) in pediatric population and also to compare the acute drug related side-effects and ventilation requirement among the both arms of anti-epileptic drug therapy.

METHODS

All consecutive children admitted with BRSE were randomized to group A, who received fosphenytoin at 20 mg/kg phenytoin equivalents (PE) dose and group B who received levetiracetam at 40 mg/kg over 10 min. Time to terminate seizure (response latency) was measured. If seizure remained refractory after 20 min of test drug administration, appropriate drug escalation was made according to pediatrician's discretion. All primary and secondary outcome measures were compared between the two therapeutic groups.

RESULTS

Of 61 children enrolled over 18 mo period, 29 (47.5%) were randomized to group A and 32 (52.5%) were randomized to Group B. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Among 61 children, 58(98%) required Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) admission and among those 5(8.2%) children required mechanical ventilation. Duration of PICU stay, hospital stay, the response latency and seizure recurrence were compared between both groups. Significant number of children received additional anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) in fosphenytoin group [9/29(31%)] compared to levetiracetam group [2/32(7%)] to control seizure.

CONCLUSIONS

Levetiracetam may be an effective alternative to fosphenytoin in management of BRSE in children but multicentric trials with large sample size are needed to substantiate this observation.

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.

Rapidity of CNS Effect on Photoparoxysmal Response for Brivaracetam vs. Levetiracetam: A Randomized, Double-blind, Crossover Trial in Photosensitive Epilepsy Patients

INTRODUCTION

Both levetiracetam (LEV) and brivaracetam (BRV) eliminate the electroencephalogram photoparoxysmal response (PPR) in the human phase IIa photosensitivity model of epilepsy. The physiochemical properties of BRV differ from those of LEV, having higher potency and lipophilicity plus 10- to 15-fold greater affinity for synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the rapidity of the effects of both drugs in the central nervous system (CNS) of patients with photosensitive epilepsy using time to PPR elimination post-intravenous infusion as a pharmacodynamic endpoint.

METHODS

Using a randomized, double-blind, two-period, balanced, crossover design, we tested patients with photosensitive epilepsy with equipotent milligram doses of intravenous LEV 1500 mg versus BRV 100 mg post-15-min intravenous infusion (part 1) and post-5-min intravenous infusion (part 2, same doses). Eight patients per part were deemed sufficient with 80% power to determine a 70% reduction for intravenous BRV:LEV intrapatient time ratio to PPR elimination, with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. Plasma antiseizure medicine concentrations were measured using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry.

RESULTS

Nine patients [six women; mean age 27.8 years (range 18-42)] completed the study; seven of these participated in both parts 1 and 2. In 31 of 32 instances, patients experienced PPR elimination. In mixed-effects model time analysis, BRV eliminated PPRs more quickly than did LEV (median 2 vs. 7.5 min, respectively). However, no statistically significant difference in BRV:LEV time ratio to PPR elimination was observed for two of our multiple primary outcomes: for the 15-min infusion alone (p = 0.22) or the 5-min infusion alone (p = 0.11). However, BRV was faster when we excluded an outlier patient in part 1 (p = 0.0016). For our remaining primary outcome, parts 1 and 2 data combined, the median intrapatient BRV:LEV time ratio was 0.39 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16-0.91], i.e., PPR elimination was 61% faster with BRV, p = 0.039. PPR was completely eliminated in ≤ 2 min in 11 patients with BRV and in four patients with LEV. No period or carryover effects were seen. No serious or severe adverse effects occurred. At PPR elimination (n = 16), median plasma [BRV] was 250 ng/mL (range 30-4100) and median plasma [LEV] was 28.35 μg/mL (range 1-86.7).

CONCLUSION

Outcome studies directly comparing LEV and BRV are needed to define the clinical utility of the response with BRV, which was several minutes faster than that with LEV.

CLINICAL TRIALS

ClinTrials.gov Identifier = NCT03580707; registered 07-09-18.

Levetiracetam versus phenytoin in children with status epilepticus

Background:

To compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous levetiracetam and phenytoin in status epilepticus.

Methodology:

A prospective, randomized controlled, nonblinded study was conducted in children 1 month to 12 years of age with active seizure and with status epilepticus. A total of 104 children were randomly allocated to either group 1 (levetiracetam) or group 2 (phenytoin) on the basis of computer-generated random number table. Children already on antiepileptic drugs, very sick children with shock, impending respiratory failure, or head injury, and children hypersensitive to phenytoin or levetiracetam were excluded. Data analysis was done by IBM SPSS statistics.

Results:

The mean age was 4.09 years with a male preponderance with the most common type of seizure being generalized type (74%). The seizures were controlled in all 104 patients initially within 40 min. Seizure control for 24 h was significantly better in group 1 (96%) when compared with group 2 (59.6%) (P = 0.0001). Minibolus of drug was given in 28.8% in group 1 and 46.2% in group 2 (P = 0.068). The seizure recurrence in groups 1 and 2 in the first hour was 1.9% and 5.8%, respectively (P = 0.61), whereas the recurrence between 1 and 24 h was significantly more in group 1 (34.6%) when compared with group 2 (3.8%) (P = 0.0001). The mean time to control seizure was comparable between both the groups (P = 0.71). There was no significant adverse effect in both the groups.

Conclusion:

Levetiracetam is more effective than phenytoin for seizure control for 24 h in children with status epilepticus, and it is safe and effective as a second-line therapy.

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Evaluation of Intravenous Levetiracetam in Children With Epilepsy

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of intravenous (IV) levetiracetam (LEV) as a monotherapy in children aged 1 month-16 years and to explore the pharmacokinetics (PK) of IV LEV and the time to seizure after IV then oral administration of LEV in pediatric children with epilepsy. Children diagnosed with acute unprovoked seizures requiring in-hospital IV LEV administration were included. After administration, the clinical seizure outcomes, side effects, and the Korean-Child Behavior Checklist were monitored and the PK and repeated time to seizure were analyzed via modeling using NONMEM software. Overall, 37 children with epilepsy were enrolled and underwent a PK analysis (median age, 4.6 years; median weight, 18.0 kg). Nine children (24.3%) had seizure recurrence during the follow-up period (median, 3.8 months) and 5 children (13.5%) experienced LEV-associated adverse events such as irritability (n = 2; 5.4%) and somnolence (n = 3; 8.1%). The plasma LEV concentrations after IV LEV were best described by a one-compartment linear PK model. Only body weight was associated with both the clearance and volume of distribution of LEV. The Weibull distribution model described the time to seizure recurrence well; no statistically significant predictor for the time to seizure was identified. Therefore, IV LEV was a well-tolerated and effective alternative in children with acute unprovoked seizures, and models for the PK and time to repeated seizure recurrence after LEV were successfully developed. In particular, the current use of a weight-based IV LEV dosing regimen in pediatric children is practical.

IV Levetiracetam versus IV Phenytoin in Childhood Seizures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of IV phenytoin and IV levetiracetam in acute seizures.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Tertiary care hospital, November 2012 to April 2014.

PATIENTS

100 children aged 3-12 yrs of age presenting with acute seizures.

INTERVENTION

Participants randomly received either IV phenytoin 20 mg/kg (n = 50) or IV levetiracetam 30 mg/kg (n = 50). Patients who were had seizures at presentation received IV diazepam prior to these drugs.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary: Absence of seizure activity within next 24 hrs.Secondary: Stopping of clinical seizure activity within 20 mins of first intervention, change in cardiorespiratory parameters, and achievement of therapeutic drug levels.

RESULTS

Two groups were comparable in patient characteristics and seizure type (P > 0.05). Of the 100 children, 3 in levetiracetam and 2 in phenytoin group had a repeat seizure in 24 hrs, efficacy was comparable (94% vs 96%, P > 0.05). Of these, 18 (36%) in phenytoin and 12 (24%) in levetiracetam group received diazepam. Sedation time was 178.80 ±97.534 mins in phenytoin and 145.50 ±105.208 mins in levetiracetam group (P = 0.346). Changes in cardiorespiratory parameters were similar in both groups except a lower diastolic blood pressure with phenytoin (P = 0.023). Therapeutic drug levels were achieved in 38 (76%) children both at 4 and 24 hrs with phenytoin, compared to 50 (100%) and 48 (98%) at 1 and 24 hrs with levetiracetam (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Intravenous levetiracetam and phenytoin have similar efficacy in preventing seizure recurrences for 24 hrs in children 3-12 years presenting with acute seizures.

IV Levetiracetam versus IV Phenytoin in Childhood Seizures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objectives:

To compare the efficacy of IV phenytoin and IV levetiracetam in acute seizures.

Design:

Randomized controlled trial.

Setting:

Tertiary care hospital, November 2012 to April 2014.

Patients:

100 children aged 3–12 yrs of age presenting with acute seizures.

Intervention:

Participants randomly received either IV phenytoin 20 mg/kg (n = 50) or IV levetiracetam 30 mg/kg (n = 50). Patients who were had seizures at presentation received IV diazepam prior to these drugs.

Outcome Measures:

Primary: Absence of seizure activity within next 24 hrs.

Secondary: Stopping of clinical seizure activity within 20 mins of first intervention, change in cardiorespiratory parameters, and achievement of therapeutic drug levels.

Results:

Two groups were comparable in patient characteristics and seizure type (P > 0.05). Of the 100 children, 3 in levetiracetam and 2 in phenytoin group had a repeat seizure in 24 hrs, efficacy was comparable (94% vs 96%, P > 0.05). Of these, 18 (36%) in phenytoin and 12 (24%) in levetiracetam group received diazepam. Sedation time was 178.80 ±97.534 mins in phenytoin and 145.50 ±105.208 mins in levetiracetam group (P = 0.346). Changes in cardiorespiratory parameters were similar in both groups except a lower diastolic blood pressure with phenytoin (P = 0.023). Therapeutic drug levels were achieved in 38 (76%) children both at 4 and 24 hrs with phenytoin, compared to 50 (100%) and 48 (98%) at 1 and 24 hrs with levetiracetam (P < 0.05).

Conclusion:

Intravenous levetiracetam and phenytoin have similar efficacy in preventing seizure recurrences for 24 hrs in children 3–12 years presenting with acute seizures.

Clinical Pharmacology Studies in Critically Ill Children

Developmental and physiological changes in children contribute to variation in drug disposition with age. Additionally, critically ill children suffer from various life-threatening conditions that can lead to pathophysiological alterations that further affect pharmacokinetics (PK). Some factors that can alter PK in this patient population include variability in tissue distribution caused by protein binding changes and fluid shifts, altered drug elimination due to organ dysfunction, and use of medical interventions that can affect drug disposition (e.g., extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and continuous renal replacement therapy). Performing clinical studies in critically ill children is challenging because there is large inter-subject variability in the severity and time course of organ dysfunction; some critical illnesses are rare, which can affect subject enrollment; and critically ill children usually have multiple organ failure, necessitating careful selection of a study design. As a result, drug dosing in critically ill children is often based on extrapolations from adults or non-critically ill children. Dedicated clinical studies in critically ill children are urgently needed to identify optimal dosing of drugs in this vulnerable population. This review will summarize the effect of critical illness on pediatric PK, the challenges associated with performing studies in this vulnerable subpopulation, and the clinical PK studies performed to date for commonly used drugs.

A Comparison of Intravenous Levetiracetam and Valproate for the Treatment of Refractory Status Epilepticus in Children

Because of the lack of studies comparing the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam and valproate before the induction of general anesthesia in the treatment of convulsive refractory status epilepticus in children, we aimed to compare the effectiveness of these antiepileptic drugs in patients with convulsive status epilepticus admitted to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit between 2011 and 2014. Forty-six (59%) of the 78 patients received levetiracetam, and 32 (41%) received valproate for the treatment of refractory status epilepticus. The response rate was not significantly different between the 2 groups. Although no adverse event was noted in patients who received levetiracetam, 4 (12.5%) patients in the valproate group experienced liver dysfunction (P = .025). According to our results, levetiracetam and valproate may be used in the treatment of refractory status epilepticus before the induction of general anesthesia. Levetiracetam appears as effective as valproate, and also safer.

Management of Status Epilepticus in Children

Status epilepticus is a common pediatric neurological emergency. Management includes prompt administration of appropriately selected anti-seizure medications, identification and treatment of seizure precipitant(s), as well as identification and management of associated systemic complications. This review discusses the definitions, classification, epidemiology and management of status epilepticus and refractory status epilepticus in children.

Intravenous levetiracetam in critically ill children

Background:

To report the effectiveness and safety of intravenous (IV) levetiracetam (LEV) in the treatment of critically ill children with acute repetitive seizures and status epilepticus (SE) in a children's hospital.

Materials and Methods:

We retrospectively analyzed data from children treated with IV LEV.

Results:

The mean age of the 108 children was 69.39 ± 46.14 months (1-192 months). There were 58 (53.1%) males and 50 (46.8%) females. LEV load dose was 28.33 ± 4.60 mg/kg/dose (10-40 mg/kg). Out of these 108 patients, LEV terminated seizures in 79 (73.1%). No serious adverse effects were observed but agitation and aggression were developed in two patients, and mild erythematous rash and urticaria developed in one patient.

Conclusion:

Antiepileptic treatment of critically ill children with IV LEV seems to be effective and safe. Further study is needed to elucidate the role of IV LEV in critically ill children.

Intravenous levetiracetam versus phenobarbital in children with status epilepticus or acute repetitive seizures

Purpose

This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of intravenous (i.v.) phenobarbital (PHB) and i.v. levetiracetam (LEV) in children with status epilepticus (SE) or acute repetitive seizure (ARS).

Methods

The medical records of children (age range, 1 month to 15 years) treated with i.v. PHB or LEV for SE or ARS at our single tertiary center were retrospectively reviewed. Seizure termination was defined as seizure cessation within 30 minutes of infusion completion and no recurrence within 24 hours. Information on the demographic variables, electroencephalography and magnetic resonance imaging findings, previous antiepileptic medications, and adverse events after drug infusion was obtained.

Results

The records of 88 patients with SE or ARS (median age, 18 months; 50 treated with PHB and 38 with LEV) were reviewed. The median initial dose of i.v. PHB was 20 mg/kg (range, 10–20 mg/kg) and that of i.v. LEV was 30 mg/kg (range, 20–30 mg/kg). Seizure termination occurred in 57.9% of patients treated with i.v. LEV (22 of 38) and 74.0% treated with i.v. PHB (37 of 50) (P=0.111). The factor associated with seizure termination was the type of event (SE vs. ARS) in each group. Adverse effects were reported in 13.2% of patients treated with i.v. LEV (5 of 38; n=4, aggressive behavior and n=1, vomiting), and 28.0% of patients treated with i.v. PHB (14 of 50).

Conclusion

Intravenous LEV was efficacious and safe in children with ARS or SE. Further evaluation is needed to determine the most effective and best-tolerated loading dose of i.v. LEV.

Evidence-Based Guideline: Treatment of Convulsive Status Epilepticus in Children and Adults: Report of the Guideline Committee of the American Epilepsy Society

CONTEXT

The optimal pharmacologic treatment for early convulsive status epilepticus is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze efficacy, tolerability and safety data for anticonvulsant treatment of children and adults with convulsive status epilepticus and use this analysis to develop an evidence-based treatment algorithm.

DATA SOURCES

Structured literature review using MEDLINE, Embase, Current Contents, and Cochrane library supplemented with article reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials of anticonvulsant treatment for seizures lasting longer than 5 minutes.

DATA EXTRACTION

Individual studies were rated using predefined criteria and these results were used to form recommendations, conclusions, and an evidence-based treatment algorithm.

RESULTS

A total of 38 randomized controlled trials were identified, rated and contributed to the assessment. Only four trials were considered to have class I evidence of efficacy. Two studies were rated as class II and the remaining 32 were judged to have class III evidence. In adults with convulsive status epilepticus, intramuscular midazolam, intravenous lorazepam, intravenous diazepam and intravenous phenobarbital are established as efficacious as initial therapy (Level A). Intramuscular midazolam has superior effectiveness compared to intravenous lorazepam in adults with convulsive status epilepticus without established intravenous access (Level A). In children, intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam are established as efficacious at stopping seizures lasting at least 5 minutes (Level A) while rectal diazepam, intramuscular midazolam, intranasal midazolam, and buccal midazolam are probably effective (Level B). No significant difference in effectiveness has been demonstrated between intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam in adults or children with convulsive status epilepticus (Level A). Respiratory and cardiac symptoms are the most commonly encountered treatment-emergent adverse events associated with intravenous anticonvulsant drug administration in adults with convulsive status epilepticus (Level A). The rate of respiratory depression in patients with convulsive status epilepticus treated with benzodiazepines is lower than in patients with convulsive status epilepticus treated with placebo indicating that respiratory problems are an important consequence of untreated convulsive status epilepticus (Level A). When both are available, fosphenytoin is preferred over phenytoin based on tolerability but phenytoin is an acceptable alternative (Level A). In adults, compared to the first therapy, the second therapy is less effective while the third therapy is substantially less effective (Level A). In children, the second therapy appears less effective and there are no data about third therapy efficacy (Level C). The evidence was synthesized into a treatment algorithm.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the paucity of well-designed randomized controlled trials, practical conclusions and an integrated treatment algorithm for the treatment of convulsive status epilepticus across the age spectrum (infants through adults) can be constructed. Multicenter, multinational efforts are needed to design, conduct and analyze additional randomized controlled trials that can answer the many outstanding clinically relevant questions identified in this guideline.

Treatment of Generalized Convulsive Status Epilepticus in Pediatric Patients

Generalized convulsive status epilepticus (GCSE) is one of the most common neurologic emergencies and can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality if not treated promptly and aggressively. Management of GCSE is staged and generally involves the use of life support measures, identification and management of underlying causes, and rapid initiation of anticonvulsants. The purpose of this article is to review and evaluate published reports regarding the treatment of impending, established, refractory, and super-refractory GCSE in pediatric patients.

Intravenous levetiracetam in Thai children and adolescents with status epilepticus and acute repetitive seizures

BACKGROUND

Intravenous levetiracetam is an option for treatment of status epilepticus (SE) and acute repetitive seizures (ARS). However, there have been relatively few studies with children and adolescents. Also, an appropriate dosage has yet to be determined.

AIM

This study investigated the safety and the efficacy of levetiracetam for intravenous treatment of convulsive status epilepticus and acute repetitive seizures in children and adolescents.

METHOD

Retrospectively, the study reviewed the medical records of 19 male and 31 female patients under 18 years of age who had received intravenous levetiracetam treatment either for acute repetitive seizures or for convulsive status epilepticus. The patients were admitted between April 1st, 2010 and December 31st, 2011 to the Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. Data were collected on underlying illnesses, etiology of seizures, indication for levetiracetam therapy, initial dosage, rate of infusion, untoward effects during infusion and emerged complications. Efficacy of treatment was defined as the termination of seizure within 30 min of completing levetiracetam infusion and no seizure recurrence within 6 h of initial treatment.

RESULTS

The age range of the 50 patients was from one day to 18 years (mean 79.6 months). The analysis included 52 episodes of 34 acute repetitive seizures (63.4%) and 18 convulsive status epilepticus (34.6%). Infusion rates ranged from 2 to 66 mg/kg/min (mean 29.6). Cessation of seizure was obtained in 59.6% of 52 episodes. Patients with underlying drug resistant epilepsy did not respond to levetiracetam therapy as well as patients with other etiology of seizures. There were no adverse drug reactions or untoward effects observed during the therapy.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous administration of levetiracetam is safe and effective for treatment of acute repetitive seizures and convulsive status epilepticus in children and adolescents. Failure of treatment may be related to underlying drug resistant epilepsy. Further study of appropriate initial dosage and pharmacokinetic variations in the patients is needed as possible explanation of the unresponsiveness.

Status epilepticus and refractory status epilepticus management

Status epilepticus (SE) describes persistent or recurring seizures without a return to baseline mental status and is a common neurologic emergency. SE can occur in the context of epilepsy or may be symptomatic of a wide range of underlying etiologies. The clinician's aim is to rapidly institute care that simultaneously stabilizes the patient medically, identifies and manages any precipitant conditions, and terminates seizures. Seizure management involves "emergent" treatment with benzodiazepines followed by "urgent" therapy with other antiseizure medications. If seizures persist, then refractory SE is diagnosed and management options include additional antiseizure medications or infusions of midazolam or pentobarbital. This article reviews the management of pediatric SE and refractory SE.

Efficacy and safety of IV levetiracetam in children with acute repetitive seizures

BACKGROUND

Levetiracetam has been proven to be effective in both partial and generalized seizures in children. However, few studies have reported its efficacy in the treatment of acute repetitive seizures. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam in children with acute repetitive seizures.

METHODS

The medical records of children from the age of 1 month-18 years who received levetiracetam because of acute repetitive seizures in the pediatric intensive care unit between 2010 and 2013 were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Of the 133 patients, levetiracetam terminated seizures in 104 (78.2%). Side effects such as agitation and aggression were observed in three patients (2.2%). The likelihood of treatment failure was increased by four times by younger age at seizure onset; by six times in the individuals with neurological abnormalities; and by 22 times in the patients with West syndrome. The patients who used levetiracetam as the first treatment option for acute repetitive seizures had a longer duration of epilepsy, a higher rate of neurological abnormality, and a higher proportion of medically resistant epilepsy compared with the individuals who used levetiracetam as an add-on treatment to the other intravenous antiepileptic drugs. However, no differences were detected between these two groups in terms of treatment response.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous levetiracetam appears to be effective and safe in the treatment of acute repetitive seizures. Randomized clinical trials are needed to determine whether intravenous levetiracetam may replace other antiepileptic drugs as the first-line therapy in the management of acute repetitive seizures.

Levetiracetam rectal administration in healthy dogs

BACKGROUND

Levetiracetam is used to manage status epilepticus (SE) and cluster seizures (CS) in humans. The drug might be absorbed after rectal administration and could offer a practical adjunct to rectal administration of diazepam in managing SE and CS.

HYPOTHESIS

Levetiracetam is rapidly absorbed after rectal administration in dogs and maintains target serum concentrations for at least 9 hours.

ANIMALS

Six healthy privately owned dogs between 2 and 6 years of age and weighing 10-20 kg.

METHODS

Levetiracetam (40 mg/kg) was administered rectally and blood samples were obtained immediately before (time zero) and at 10, 20, 40, 60, 90, 180, 360, and 540 minutes after drug administration. Dogs were observed for signs of adverse effects over a 24-hour period after drug administration.

RESULTS

CLEV at 10 minutes was 15.3 ± 5.5 μg/mL (mean, SD) with concentrations in the target range (5-40 μg/mL) for all dogs throughout the sampling period. Cmax (36.0 ± 10.7 μg/mL) and Tmax (103 ± 31 minutes) values were calculated and 2 disparate groups were appreciated. Dogs with feces in the rectum at the time of drug administration had lower mean Cmax values (26.7 ± 3.4 μg/mL) compared with those without (45.2 ± 4.4 μg/mL). Mild sedation was observed between 60 and 90 minutes without other adverse effects noted.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

This study supports the use of rectally administered levetiracetam in future studies of clinical effectiveness in the management of epileptic dogs.

Clinical pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of levetiracetam

Status epilepticus and acute repetitive seizures still pose a management challenge despite the recent advances in the field of epilepsy. Parenteral formulations of old anticonvulsants are still a cornerstone in acute seizure management and are approved by the FDA. Intravenous levetiracetam (IV LEV), a second generation anticonvulsant, is approved by the FDA as an adjunctive treatment in patients 16 years or older when oral administration is not available. Data have shown that it has a unique mechanism of action, linear pharmacokinetics and no known drug interactions with other anticonvulsants. In this paper, we will review the current literature about the pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of IV LEV and the safety profile of this new anticonvulsant in acute seizure management of both adults and children.

Role of intravenous levetiracetam for acute seizure management in preterm neonates

BACKGROUND

Neonatal seizures are common in the first month of life and may impair neurodevelopmental outcome. Current antiepileptic drugs used in the treatment of neonatal seizures have limited efficacy and undesirable side effects. Intravenous levetiracetam is increasingly being used in the neonatal period to treat seizures. Presently, insufficient data about the efficacy and safety of intravenous levetiracetam in preterm neonates exist.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from preterm neonates who were treated with intravenous levetiracetam at our institution between January 2007 and December 2011. Data were acquired from review of our institution's electronic medical record regarding patients who were treated with intravenous levetiracetam during the neonatal period (0 to 28 days) and were born at preterm gestation (<37 weeks).

RESULTS

Twelve patients received a levetiracetam load of 25 to 50 mg/kg for neonatal seizures. Nine of 11 patients (82%) reached seizure cessation within 24 hours of receiving levetiracetam. No serious side effects were evident. Seven patients (59%) were discharged on oral levetiracetam alone, four patients (33%) were discharged on no oral antiepileptic drug, and one patient (8%) was discharged on levetiracetam and phenobarbital. Eleven of 12 patients were followed up to 6 months after receiving intravenous levetiracetam. Of these, six patients (55%) had achieved seizure freedom and been completely weaned off of all antiepileptic drugs. Three patients (27%) had achieved seizure freedom while still on oral levetiracetam.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous levetiracetam appears to be efficacious for seizure management in preterm neonates.

Prospective Open-Label, Single-Arm, Multicenter, Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetic Studies of Intravenous Levetiracetam in Children With Epilepsy

Levetiracetam given via intravenous administration has been shown to be an effective alternative in adults with epilepsy when oral administration is not feasible. This study was a prospective single-arm, multicenter study to assess tolerability, safety, and pharmacokinetics of intravenous levetiracetam in children with epilepsy. Children with epilepsy ages 1 month to 16 years requiring intravenous levetiracetam were enrolled. Assessments included vital signs, electrocardiogram, hematology, chemistry, plasma concentrations of antiepileptic medications, weight, physical/neurological examinations, and pharmacokinetics. A total of 52 patients were enrolled. Mild to moderate treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 63%, the most frequent being pyrexia and dry mouth. Most other treatment-emergent adverse events were considered unrelated to intravenous levetiracetam administration. Therefore, intravenous levetiracetam in the acute setting was overall well tolerated in children 1 month to 16 years.

Levetiracetam use in the critical care setting

Intravenous (IV) levetiracetam (LEV) is currently approved as an alternative or replacement therapy for patients unable to take the oral form of this antiepileptic drug (AED). The oral form has Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indications for adjunctive therapy in the treatment of partial onset epilepsy ages 1 month or more, myoclonic seizures associated with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy starting with the age of 12 and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in people 6 years and older. Since the initial introduction, oral and IV LEV has been evaluated in various studies conducted in the critical care setting for the treatment of status epilepticus, stroke-related seizures, seizures following subarachnoid or intracerebral hemorrhage, post-traumatic seizures, tumor-related seizures, and seizures in critically ill patients. Additionally, studies evaluating rapid infusion of IV LEV and therapeutic monitoring of serum LEV levels in different patient populations have been performed. In this review we present the current state of knowledge on LEV use in the critical care setting focusing on the IV uses and discuss future research needs.

Efficacy and tolerability of intravenous levetiracetam in childrens

Intractable epilepsy in children poses a serious medical challenge. Acute repetitive seizures and status epilepticus leads to frequent emergency room visits and hospital admissions. Delay of treatment may lead to resistance to the first-line anticonvulsant therapies. It has been shown that these children continue to remain intractable even after acute seizure management with approved Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agents. Intravenous levetiracetam, a second-generation anticonvulsant was approved by the FDA in 2006 in patients 16 years and older as an alternative when oral treatment is not an option. Data have been published showing that intravenous levetiracetam is safe and efficacious, and can be used in an acute inpatient setting. This current review will discuss the recent data about the safety and tolerability of intravenous levetiracetam in children and neonates, and emphasize the need for a larger prospective multicenter trial to prove the efficacy of this agent in acute seizure management.

Guidelines for the evaluation and management of status epilepticus

Status epilepticus (SE) treatment strategies vary substantially from one institution to another due to the lack of data to support one treatment over another. To provide guidance for the acute treatment of SE in critically ill patients, the Neurocritical Care Society organized a writing committee to evaluate the literature and develop an evidence-based and expert consensus practice guideline. Literature searches were conducted using PubMed and studies meeting the criteria established by the writing committee were evaluated. Recommendations were developed based on the literature using standardized assessment methods from the American Heart Association and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation systems, as well as expert opinion when sufficient data were lacking.

Use of intravenous levetiracetam for management of acute seizures in neonates

Antiepileptic drugs used for the treatment of neonatal seizures have limited efficacy and undesirable side effects, leading to increased off-label use in neonates. Intravenous levetiracetam became available in August 2006 for use in patients above 16 years of age. Insufficient data are available about the efficacy and safety of intravenous levetiracetam in neonates. Data captured from our institution's electronic medical records were retrospectively analyzed for neonates treated with intravenous levetiracetam between January 2007 and December 2009. Data were acquired by reviewing our electronic medical records. Twenty-two patients received a levetiracetam load of 10-50 mg/kg for neonatal seizures. Nineteen of 22 patients (86%) demonstrated immediate seizure cessation at 1 hour. Seven of 22 patients (32%) achieved complete seizure cessation after administration of the loading dose, 14 (64%) achieved seizure cessation by 24 hours, 19 (86%) by 48 hours, and all 22 (100%) by 72 hours. No serious side effects were evident. Nineteen patients (86%) were discharged on oral levetiracetam, and only two patients (9%) were discharged with an additional oral antiepileptic drug. Intravenous levetiracetam can be used as monotherapy and adjunctively in acute seizure management during the neonatal period.

Levetiracetam for treatment of neonatal seizures

Neonatal seizures are often refractory to treatment with initial antiseizure medications. Consequently, clinicians turn to alternatives such as levetiracetam, despite the lack of published data regarding its safety, tolerability, or efficacy in the neonatal population. We report a retrospectively identified cohort of 23 neonates with electroencephalographically confirmed seizures who received levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was considered effective if administration was associated with a greater than 50% seizure reduction within 24 hours. Levetiracetam was initiated at a mean conceptional age of 41 weeks. The mean initial dose was 16 ± 6 mg/kg and the mean maximum dose was 45 ± 19 mg/kg/day. No respiratory or cardiovascular adverse effects were reported or detected. Levetiracetam was associated with a greater than 50% seizure reduction in 35% (8 of 23), including seizure termination in 7. Further study is warranted to determine optimal levetiracetam dosing in neonates and to compare efficacy with other antiseizure medications.

Status epilepticus

Status epilepticus is a common neurological emergency in childhood and associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Status epilepticus (SE) has been defined as continuous seizure activity lasting more than 30 min or 2 or more seizures in this duration without gaining consciousness between them. However, the operational definition has brought the time down to 5 min. Management can be broadly divided into initial stabilization, seizure termination, and evaluation and treatment of the underlying cause. Diagnostic evaluation and seizure control should be achieved simultaneously to improve outcome. Seizure termination is achieved by pharmacotherapy. Benzodiazepines are the first line drugs for SE. Commonly used drugs include lorazepam, diazepam, and midazolam. In children without an IV access, buccal or nasal midazolam or rectal diazepam can be used. Phenytoin as a second line agent is usually indicated when seizure is not controlled after one or more doses of benzodiazepines. If the seizures continue to persist, valproate, phenobarbitone or levetiracetam is indicated. Midazolam infusion is useful in refractory status epilepticus. Thiopentone, propofol or high dose phenobarbitone are considered for treatment of refractory status epilepticus. Prolonged SE is associated with higher morbidity and mortality. Long term neurological sequelae include epilepsy, behavioural problems, cognitive decline, and focal neurologic deficits.

Medical treatment of pediatric status epilepticus

Status epilepticus (SE) is a common pediatric neurologic emergency that refers to a prolonged seizure or recurrent seizures without a return to baseline mental status between seizures. Appropriate treatment strategies are necessary to prevent prolonged SE and its associated morbidity and mortality. This review discusses the importance of a rapid and organized management approach, reviews data related to commonly utilized medications including benzodiazepines, phenytoin, phenobarbital, valproate sodium, and levetiracetam, and then provides a sample SE management algorithm.

Intravenous levetiracetam in the management of acute seizures in children

Levetiracetam may be effective in children with acute seizures or status epilepticus. We performed a retrospective chart review of children who received intravenous levetiracetam within 30 minutes of a seizure. Seventy-three patients during a 2-year study period met our inclusion criteria. The mean (+/- S.D.) age and weight of the patients were 5.59 +/- 5.6 years (range, 1 day to 17.8 years) and 23.1 +/- 21 kg (range, 1.97-97 kg), respectively. Patients received a mean (+/- S.D.) levetiracetam dose of 29.4 +/- 13.5 mg/kg. Most children (n = 49, or 67%) received additional antiepileptic drugs to abort their seizure. Overall, the mean (+/- S.D.) total (abortive plus chronic) number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs used by the population was 2.53 +/- 1.7 (1.07 +/- 0.98 as additional abortive therapy, and 1.42 +/- 1.29 as chronic therapy). Most patients received levetiracetam for serial seizures (79%), whereas 12% and 8% manifested a single seizure or status epilepticus, respectively. Clinical effectiveness at 1, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours after the initial levetiracetam dose constituted the primary study outcome. Eighty-nine percent of patients remained seizure-free at 1 hour. This rate decreased at each evaluation time point. Most patients (71%) were placed on maintenance levetiracetam within 24 hours of their loading dose. The predictive ability of patient and drug regimen variables in outcomes was poor. Only the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs consistently predicted outcomes. Levetiracetam was well tolerated at the doses studied, and appears most effective in single seizure events.

Status epilepticus

Status epilepticus (SE) is one of the most commonly occurring neurologic emergencies. About 40% of SE cases occur in people with epilepsy. Convulsive SE is easily recognized, but nonconvulsive SE is not and requires both a high index of suspicion and EEG confirmation. SE has a high mortality risk and requires rapid effective treatment for optimal response to therapy and outcome. The goal of treatment is to stop all clinical and electrographic seizures while maintaining vital functions. If seizures continue after initial treatment with a benzodiazepine, additional antiepileptic therapy should be administered. When SE is refractory to these treatments, continuous IV infusion with midazolam, propofol, or a barbiturate suppresses seizure activity. Standard treatment protocols are useful in promoting rapid intervention with appropriate medications.