A multicentre randomised controlled trial of levetiracetam versus phenytoin for convulsive status epilepticus in children (protocol): Convulsive Status Epilepticus Paediatric Trial (ConSEPT) - a PREDICT study

Early Neurologic Recovery, Practice Pattern Variation, and the Risk of Endotracheal Intubation Following Established Status Epilepticus

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the association between early neurologic recovery, practice pattern variation, and endotracheal intubation during established status epilepticus, we performed a secondary analysis within the cohort of patients enrolled in the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT).

METHODS

We evaluated factors associated with the endpoint of endotracheal intubation occurring within 120 minutes of ESETT study drug initiation. We defined a blocked, stepwise multivariate regression, examining 4 phases during status epilepticus management: (1) baseline characteristics, (2) acute treatment, (3) 20-minute neurologic recovery, and (4) 60-minute recovery, including seizure cessation and improving responsiveness.

RESULTS

Of 478 patients, 117 (24.5%) were intubated within 120 minutes. Among high-enrolling sites, intubation rates ranged from 4% to 32% at pediatric sites and 19% to 39% at adult sites. Baseline characteristics, including seizure precipitant, benzodiazepine dosing, and admission vital signs, provided limited discrimination for predicting intubation (area under the curve [AUC] 0.63). However, treatment at sites with an intubation rate in the highest (vs lowest) quartile strongly predicted endotracheal intubation independently of other treatment variables (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 8.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.08-21.4, model AUC 0.70). Site-specific variation was the factor most strongly associated with endotracheal intubation after adjustment for 20-minute (aOR 23.4, 95% CI 6.99-78.3, model AUC 0.88) and 60-minute (aOR 14.7, 95% CI 3.20-67.5, model AUC 0.98) neurologic recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Endotracheal intubation after established status epilepticus is strongly associated with site-specific practice pattern variation, independently of baseline characteristics, and early neurologic recovery and should not alone serve as a clinical trial endpoint in established status epilepticus.

TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01960075.

Levetiracetam as an alternative to phenytoin for second-line emergency treatment of children with convulsive status epilepticus: the EcLiPSE RCT

BACKGROUND

Convulsive status epilepticus is the most common neurological emergency in children. Its management is important to avoid or minimise neurological morbidity and death. The current first-choice second-line drug is phenytoin (Epanutin, Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA), for which there is no robust scientific evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether phenytoin or levetiracetam (Keppra, UCB Pharma, Brussels, Belgium) is the more clinically effective intravenous second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus and to help better inform its management.

DESIGN

A multicentre parallel-group randomised open-label superiority trial with a nested mixed-method study to assess recruitment and research without prior consent.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from 30 paediatric emergency departments in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants aged 6 months to 17 years 11 months, who were presenting with convulsive status epilepticus and were failing to respond to first-line treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

Intravenous levetiracetam (40 mg/kg) or intravenous phenytoin (20 mg/kg).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome - time from randomisation to cessation of all visible signs of convulsive status epilepticus. Secondary outcomes - further anticonvulsants to manage the convulsive status epilepticus after the initial agent, the need for rapid sequence induction owing to ongoing convulsive status epilepticus, admission to critical care and serious adverse reactions.

RESULTS

Between 17 July 2015 and 7 April 2018, 286 participants were randomised, treated and consented. A total of 152 participants were allocated to receive levetiracetam and 134 participants to receive phenytoin. Convulsive status epilepticus was terminated in 106 (70%) participants who were allocated to levetiracetam and 86 (64%) participants who were allocated to phenytoin. Median time from randomisation to convulsive status epilepticus cessation was 35 (interquartile range 20-not assessable) minutes in the levetiracetam group and 45 (interquartile range 24-not assessable) minutes in the phenytoin group (hazard ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.60; p = 0.2). Results were robust to prespecified sensitivity analyses, including time from treatment commencement to convulsive status epilepticus termination and competing risks. One phenytoin-treated participant experienced serious adverse reactions.

LIMITATIONS

First, this was an open-label trial. A blinded design was considered too complex, in part because of the markedly different infusion rates of the two drugs. Second, there was subjectivity in the assessment of 'cessation of all signs of continuous, rhythmic clonic activity' as the primary outcome, rather than fixed time points to assess convulsive status epilepticus termination. However, site training included simulated demonstration of seizure cessation. Third, the time point of randomisation resulted in convulsive status epilepticus termination prior to administration of trial treatment in some cases. This affected both treatment arms equally and had been prespecified at the design stage. Last, safety measures were a secondary outcome, but the trial was not powered to demonstrate difference in serious adverse reactions between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Levetiracetam was not statistically superior to phenytoin in convulsive status epilepticus termination rate, time taken to terminate convulsive status epilepticus or frequency of serious adverse reactions. The results suggest that it may be an alternative to phenytoin in the second-line management of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus. Simple trial design, bespoke site training and effective leadership were found to facilitate practitioner commitment to the trial and its success. We provide a framework to optimise recruitment discussions in paediatric emergency medicine trials.

FUTURE WORK

Future work should include a meta-analysis of published studies and the possible sequential use of levetiracetam and phenytoin or sodium valproate in the second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22567894 and European Clinical Trials Database EudraCT number 2014-002188-13.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 58. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Establishing a research network

Multicentre research provides advantages over single-centre research by maximising available patient numbers while pooling varied expertise and resources available across different participating investigators and sites. The increased complexity of multicentre regulatory approvals, communication and study management, can be mitigated by the formation of a research network where multicentre efforts move from ad hoc, single projects to formalised ongoing collaboration. Network research helps prioritise research efforts and importantly fosters the development of a collaborative track record in terms of research expertise, research capacity and grant success. It also has the potential to rapidly change patient care across many hospitals as research results will be more generalizable and definitive. This paper sets out the key elements of network research, its benefits and possible challenges drawing on the example of PREDICT (Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative) an established paediatric emergency research network in Australia and New Zealand.

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.

Levetiracetam versus phenytoin for second-line treatment of convulsive status epilepticus in children (ConSEPT): an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Phenytoin is the current standard of care for second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus after failure of first-line benzodiazepines, but is only effective in 60% of cases and is associated with considerable adverse effects. A newer anticonvulsant, levetiracetam, can be given more quickly, is potentially more efficacious, and has a more tolerable adverse effect profile. We aimed to determine whether phenytoin or levetiracetam is the superior second-line treatment for paediatric convulsive status epilepticus.

METHODS

ConSEPT was an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial conducted in 13 emergency departments in Australia and New Zealand. Children aged between 3 months and 16 years, with convulsive status epilepticus that failed first-line benzodiazepine treatment, were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated permuted block (block sizes 2 and 4) randomisation sequence, stratified by site and age (≤5 years, >5 years), to receive 20 mg/kg phenytoin (intravenous or intraosseous infusion over 20 min) or 40 mg/kg levetiracetam (intravenous or intraosseous infusion over 5 min). The primary outcome was clinical cessation of seizure activity 5 min after the completion of infusion of the study drug. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12615000129583.

FINDINGS

Between March 19, 2015, and Nov 29, 2017, 639 children presented to participating emergency departments with convulsive status epilepticus; 127 were missed, and 278 did not meet eligibility criteria. The parents of one child declined to give consent, leaving 233 children (114 assigned to phenytoin and 119 assigned to levetiracetam) in the intention-to-treat population. Clinical cessation of seizure activity 5 min after completion of infusion of study drug occurred in 68 (60%) patients in the phenytoin group and 60 (50%) patients in the levetiracetam group (risk difference -9·2% [95% CI -21·9 to 3·5]; p=0·16). One participant in the phenytoin group died at 27 days because of haemorrhagic encephalitis; this death was not thought to be due to the study drug. There were no other serious adverse events.

INTERPRETATION

Levetiracetam is not superior to phenytoin for second-line management of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus.

FUNDING

Health Research Council of New Zealand, A+ Trust, Emergency Medicine Foundation, Townsville Hospital Private Practice Fund, Eric Ormond Baker Charitable Fund, and Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation.

A Comparison of Parenteral Phenobarbital vs. Parenteral Phenytoin as Second-Line Management for Pediatric Convulsive Status Epilepticus in a Resource-Limited Setting

Introduction: Pediatric convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) which is refractory to first-line benzodiazepines is a significant clinical challenge, especially within resource-limited countries. Parenteral phenobarbital is widely used in Africa as second-line agent for pediatric CSE, however evidence to support its use is limited. Purpose: This study aimed to compare the use of parenteral phenobarbital against parenteral phenytoin as a second-line agent in the management of pediatric CSE. Methodology: An open-labeled single-center randomized parallel clinical trial was undertaken which included all children (between ages of 1 month and 15 years) who presented with CSE. Children were allocated to receive either parenteral phenobarbital or parenteral phenytoin if they did not respond to first-line benzodiazepines. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed with the investigators blinded to the treatment arms. The primary outcome measure was the success of terminating CSE. Secondary outcomes included the need for admission to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and breakthrough seizures during the admission. In addition, local epidemiological data was collected on the burden of pediatric CSE. Results: Between 2015 and 2018, 193 episodes of CSE from 111 children were enrolled in the study of which 144 met the study requirements. Forty-two percent had a prior history of epilepsy mostly from structural brain pathology (53%). The most common presentation was generalized CSE (65%) caused by acute injuries or infections of the central nervous system (59%), with 19% of children having febrile status epilepticus. Thirty-five percent of children required second-line management. More patients who received parenteral phenobarbital were at a significantly reduced risk of failing second-line treatment compared to those who received parenteral phenytoin (RR = 0.3, p = 0.0003). Phenobarbital also terminated refractory CSE faster (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, patients who received parenteral phenobarbital were less likely to need admission to the PICU. There was no difference between the two groups in the number of breakthrough seizures that occurred during admission. Conclusion: Overall this study supports anecdotal evidence that phenobarbital is a safe and effective second-line treatment for the management of pediatric CSE. These results advocate for parenteral phenobarbital to remain available to health care providers managing pediatric CSE in resource-limited settings. Attachments: CONSORT 2010 checklist Trial registration: NCT03650270 Full trial protocol available: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03650270?recrs=e&type=Intr&cond=Status+Epilepticus&age=0&rank=1.

Meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness of second-line antiepileptic drugs for status epilepticus

Objective

Compare the cost and effectiveness of nonbenzodiazepine antiepileptic drugs (non-BZD AEDs) for treatment of BZD-resistant convulsive status epilepticus (SE).

Methods

Decision analysis model populated with effectiveness data from a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature, and cost data from publicly available prices. The primary outcome was cost per seizure stopped ($/SS). Sensitivity analyses evaluated the robustness of the results across a wide variation of the input parameters.

Results

We included 24 studies with 1,185 SE episodes. The most effective non-BZD AED was phenobarbital (PB) with a probability of SS of 0.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69–0.88), followed by valproate (VPA) (0.71 [95% CI: 0.61–0.79]), lacosamide (0.66 [95% CI: 0.51–0.79]), levetiracetam (LEV) (0.62 [95% CI: 0.5–0.73]), and phenytoin/fosphenytoin (PHT) (0.53 [95% CI: 0.39–0.67]). In pairwise comparisons, PB was more effective than PHT (p = 0.002), VPA was more effective than PHT (p = 0.043), and PB was more effective than LEV (p = 0.018). The most cost-effective non-BZD AED was LEV (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: $18.55/SS), followed by VPA (ICER: $94.44/SS), and lastly PB (ICER: $847.22/SS). PHT and lacosamide were not cost-effective compared to the other options. Sensitivity analyses showed marked overlap in cost-effectiveness, but PHT was consistently less cost-effective than LEV, VPA, and PB.

Conclusion

VPA and PB were more effective than PHT for SE. There is substantial overlap in the cost-effectiveness of non-BZD AEDs for SE, but available evidence does not support the preeminence of PHT, neither in terms of effectiveness nor in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Injectable Levetiracetam Versus Phenytoin as Second-Line Therapy in the Management of Generalized Convulsive Status Epilepticus in Children: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial

Background and Purpose

There is sparsity of quality evidence for the use of drugs after first-line benzodiazepines in convulsive status epilepticus in children. The aim of the study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous levetiracetam versus intravenous phenytoin as second-line drugs in the management of generalized convulsive status epilepticus in children.

Methods

This open-label randomized controlled trial was conducted in the Emergency Department of The Children's Hospital and The Institute of Child Health, Multan, Pakistan over a period of 4 years and 6 months from January 2014 to June 2018. This study included 600 children with generalized convulsive status epilepticus: 300 in the 40 mg/kg levetiracetam group, and 300 in the 20 mg/kg phenytoin group. Cessation of a clinical seizure (seizure cessation rate) within 30 minutes after the end of drug administration was the primary outcome in this study, and the presence or absence of adverse effects was noted as the secondary outcome. Data were analyzed using SPSS (version 20.0).

Results

The children in the levetiracetam and phenytoin were aged 3.5±0.2 and 3.4±0.2 years (mean±SD), respectively, their seizure durations before the start of treatment were 25.1±0.6 and 23.8±0.4 minutes, and their treatment efficacies were 278/300 (92.7%) and 259/300 (83.3%). Levetiracetam was significantly more effective than phenytoin (p=0.012), with no significant difference in safety. Adverse events were observed in eight children in the phenytoin group.

Conclusions

Levetiracetam is significantly more effective than phenytoin for the treatment of convulsive status epilepticus in children who have failed to respond to benzodiazepines.

An update in the initial management of paediatric status epilepticus

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Over the last 2 years, algorithms for the optimal management of status epilepticus have changed, as the medical community has recognized the need to terminate seizures in status in a timely manner. Recent research has evaluated the different choices of benzodiazepine and has given consideration to second-line treatment options.

RECENT FINDINGS

There has been a move to examine alternatives to phenytoin (such as levetiracetam and lacosamide) as second-line agents. Valproate should be used cautiously in view of the potential side effects. Three ongoing trials [Established Staus Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT), Convulsive Status Epilepticus Paediatric Trial (ConSEPT), and emergency treatment with levetiracetam or phenytoin in status epilepticus in children (EcLiPSE)] are comparing the efficacy of levetiracetam and phenytoin.

SUMMARY

Benzodiazepines remain the first-line agent of choice, although there is ongoing discussion about the mode of administration and the best drug to choose. The results of ESETT, ConSEPT, and EcLiPSE will affect our future management of status, as we give consideration to levetiracetam as an alternative to phenytoin. Other medications such as lacosamide may emerge in future algorithms too.

Qualitative evaluation of a deferred consent process in paediatric emergency research: a PREDICT study

BACKGROUND

A challenge of conducting research in critically ill children is that the therapeutic window for the intervention may be too short to seek informed consent prior to enrolment. In specific circumstances, most international ethical guidelines allow for children to be enrolled in research with informed consent obtained later, termed deferred consent (DC) or retrospective consent. There is a paucity of data on the attitudes of parents to this method of enrolment in paediatric emergency research.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the attitudes of parents to the concept of DC and to expand the knowledge of the limitations to informed consent and DC in these situations.

METHOD

Children presenting with uncomplicated febrile seizures or bronchiolitis were identified from three separate hospital emergency department databases. Parents were invited to participate in a semistructured telephone interview exploring themes of limitations of prospective informed consent, acceptability of the DC process and the most appropriate time to seek DC. Transcripts underwent inductive thematic analysis with intercoder agreement, using Nvivo 11 software.

RESULTS

A total of 39 interviews were conducted. Participants comprehended the limitations of informed consent under emergency circumstances and were generally supportive of DC. However, they frequently confused concepts of clinical care and research, and support for participation was commonly linked to their belief of personal benefit.

CONCLUSION

Participants acknowledged the requirement for alternatives to prospective informed consent in emergency research, and were supportive of the concept of DC. Our results suggest that current research practice seems to align with community expectations.