Levetiracetam versus phenytoin in children with status epilepticus

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Background

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

Methodology

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Survey About Second-Line Agents for Pediatric Convulsive Status Epilepticus

BACKGROUND

Convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) is the most common neurological emergency in children. It is a frequent cause of admission to pediatric intensive care units and is associated with significant short- and long-term morbidity. Management of CSE is a step-wise approach: first-line antiseizure agents (typically benzodiazepines) followed by a second-line agent before deeper anesthesia usually accompanied by intubation and ventilation. Current guidelines in the United Kingdom specify phenytoin as the second-line agent of choice for CSE. Two recent large international randomized controlled trials compared the efficacy of phenytoin with that of another second-line agent levetiracetam. Both studies found levetiracetam to be noninferior to phenytoin.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey of clinicians across 67 emergency departments that treat children and 29 pediatric intensive care units in the United Kingdom and Ireland to assess their current and preferred second-line agents for treating pediatric CSE in light of recently published evidence. The survey was distributed via the Pediatric Emergency Research in United Kingdom and Ireland network and the Pediatric Critical Care Society.

RESULTS

We found that although most clinicians use phenytoin, as per current guidelines, they seek greater flexibility in choice of second-line agent, with levetiracetam being the preferred alternative to phenytoin.

CONCLUSIONS

To facilitate use of levetiracetam for treatment of CSE in pediatrics, it should be included as a second-line agent in addition to phenytoin in the next update of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and other United Kingdom clinical guidelines.

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

PURPOSE

Phenytoin is one of the most used antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), but it has serious potential side effects and drug interactions. Although studies have shown levetiracetam to have a much lower side-effect profile, its efficacy when compared with phenytoin is debatable. In our study, we aimed to determine the factors that cause seizure recurrence and to compare the efficacy of levetiracetam and phenytoin in the treatment of convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) and acute repetitive seizures (ARS).

METHODS

In this study, 185 patients diagnosed with CSE or ARS and aged between 1 month and 18 years who received intravenous levetiracetam or phenytoin as a second-line AED were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 185 patients were included in the study, 85 (45.9%) girls and 100 (54.1%) boys.While 54.1% (n = 100) of the patients were given phenytoin, levetiracetam was administered to 45.9% (n = 85) of them. The rates of cessation of seizure and prevention of seizure recurrence for 24 h were 84% for phenytoin and 78.8% for levetiracetam, without a significant difference (p > 0.05). Having active seizures on admission to the emergency department and an age of < 36 months were significantly related to seizure recurrence (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support that the intravenous administration of levetiracetam as the second-line treatment for CSE and ARS in children is as effective as the intravenous administration of phenytoin.

Effect of antiepileptic drug levetiracetam on cochlear function

BACKGROUND

Levetiracetam (LEV, 5-100 mg/kg) has been shown to prevent audiogenic seizures in a dose-dependent manner. This chemical is known to bind to synaptic vesicle protein 2A and inhibit l-type calcium channels, affecting neurotransmitter release. We hypothesize that the drug prevents audiogenic seizures partially by affecting cochlear neural response.

METHODS

To test this hypothesis, rats were given 1000, 500, 50, or 0 mg/kg (saline control) LEV-injection. Distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE), reflecting outer hair cell (OHC) function, and cochlear compound action potentials (CAP), reflecting cochlear neural output, were recorded and compared pre- and post-LEV.

RESULTS

1000 mg/kg LEV-injection did not significantly affect DPOAE. The high dose LEV-injection, however, significantly reduced CAP amplitude resulting threshold shift (TS), prolonged CAP latency, and enhanced CAP forward masking. CAP latency and forward masking were significantly affected at the 500 mg/kg dose, but CAP-TS remained unchanged after LEV-injection. Interestingly, CAP latency wassignificantly prolonged, at least at the low stimulation levels, although the amplitude of CAP remained constant after a clinical dose of LEV-injection (50 mg/kg).

DISCUSSION

Since the clinical dose of LEV-injection does not reduce CAP amplitude, the reduction of cochlear neural output is unlikely to be the underlying mechanism of LEV in the treatment of audiogenic seizure. The delayed cochlear neural response may be partially related to the prevention of audiogenic seizure. However, neuropharmacological changes in the central nervous system must play a major role in the treatment of audiogenic seizure, as it does in the treatment of focal epilepsy.

Treating Status Epilepticus: Phenytoin Versus Levetiracetam

For decades, phenytoin has been the drug of choice for the treatment of epilepsy but also the second-line treatment for status epilepticus (SE). However, newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) have emerged as safer alternatives for the suppression of seizures. Consequently, phenytoin has recently fallen under scrutiny in the research world, prompting many studies to compare its efficacy to these other drugs, most notably levetiracetam. Levetiracetam is a second-generation AED, which is gaining wide clinical use as the second-line agent in treating SE patients. This review focuses on several clinical studies that have directly compared the effectiveness of phenytoin and levetiracetam in suppressing SE seizure activity. Additionally, this review highlights several advantages of using levetiracetam over phenytoin in this clinical context.

Levetiracetam Versus Phenytoin or Fosphenytoin for Second-Line Treatment of Pediatric Status Epilepticus: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the available evidence examining the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam compared with phenytoin or fosphenytoin in benzodiazepine-refractory pediatric status epilepticus.

DATA SOURCES

We searched (from inception until April 27, 2020) Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers, independently and in duplicate, screened citations and manuscripts for eligible randomized controlled trials.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Independently and in duplicate, we performed data abstraction, risk of bias assessment, and certainty assessment using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. We performed meta-analyses using random-effect models or, if insufficient data, presented findings narratively.

RESULTS

We identified seven randomized controlled trials (n = 1,575). Pooled analysis demonstrated low certainty evidence for no difference of levetiracetam on time to seizure cessation (mean difference, -3.11 min; 95% CI, -6.67 to 0.45), early seizure cessation (relative risk, 1.09, 95% CI, 0.95-1.26), or late seizure cessation (relative risk, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93-1.18). Adverse event outcomes were limited by low event numbers. We found low certainty evidence for less respiratory depression with levetiracetam (relative risk, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.69).

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of levetiracetam is comparable with phenytoin or fosphenytoin in children with benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus (low certainty evidence). Levetiracetam may cause less respiratory depression. Clinicians and guideline developers should weigh safety profiles when choosing between these agents.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

[Paediatric Life Support]

The European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Paediatric Life Support (PLS) guidelines are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR). This section provides guidelines on the management of critically ill or injured infants, children and adolescents before, during and after respiratory/cardiac arrest.

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

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

Efficacy and Safety of Levetiracetam vs. Phenytoin as Second Line Antiseizure Medication for Pediatric Convulsive Status Epilepticus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam (LEV) in comparison to phenytoin (PHT) as second line antiseizure medication (ASM) for Pediatric convulsive status epilepticus (SE).

DATA SOURCE

PubMed, Embase, Google scholar/Google, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing LEV and PHT as second line agent for convulsive SE in children <18 years published between 1 January 2000 and 30 November 2020.

DATA EXTRACTION

The data were pooled regarding the proportion of children achieving seizure cessation within 5-60 min of completion of study drug infusion (primary outcome); and seizure cessation within 5 min, time to achieve seizure cessation, seizure recurrence between 1 to 24 h, intubation and cardiovascular instability (secondary outcomes). Data were analyzed using RevMan version 5.4 and quality analysis was done using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Twelve RCTs with 2293 children were included. Seizure cessation within 5-60 min was similar with both the drugs [82% in LEV vs. 77.5% in PHT, risk ratio (RR) = 1.04, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.97-1.11, p = 0.30]. Seizure recurrences within 1-24 h was higher with PHT in comparison to LEV (16.6% vs. 9.7%, RR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.44-0.90, p = 0.01). Higher proportion of children in PHT group required intubation and mechanical ventilation (21.4% vs. 14.2%, RR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.30-0.98, p = 0.04). Seizure cessation within 5 min, time to achieve seizure cessation, and cardiovascular instability were similar with both the drugs. Three RCTs were at low risk of bias and nine were at high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of LEV is similar to PHT as second line ASM for Pediatric convulsive SE. Seizure recurrences between 1 to24 h and requirement of intubation and mechanical ventilation were significantly higher with PHT in comparison to LEV.

[Efficacy and safety of levetiracetam versus phenytoin as second-line drugs for the treatment of children with convulsive status epilepticus: a Meta analysis]

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam (LEV) versus phenytoin (PHT) as second-line drugs for the treatment of convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) in children.

METHODS

English and Chinese electronic databases were searched for the randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of LEV and PHT as second-line drugs for the treatment of childhood CSE. RevMan 5.3 software was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Seven studies with 1 434 children were included. The Meta analysis showed that compared with the PHT group, the LEV group achieved a significantly higher control rate of CSE (RR=1.12, 95%CI:1.00-1.24, P=0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups in the recurrence rate of epilepsy within 24 hours (RR=0.82, 95%CI:0.22-3.11, P=0.77) and the rate of further antiepileptic drug therapy (RR=0.97, 95%CI:0.64-1.45, P=0.87). There was no significant difference in the incidence rate of adverse events between the two groups (RR=0.77, 95%CI:0.55-1.09, P=0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

LEV has a better clinical effect than PHT in the treatment of children with CSE and does not increase the incidence rate of adverse events.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Paediatric Life Support

These European Resuscitation Council Paediatric Life Support (PLS) guidelines, are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidelines on the management of critically ill infants and children, before, during and after cardiac arrest.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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