Comparison of levetiracetam with phenytoin for the prevention of intravenous busulfan-induced seizures in hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients

Impact of prophylactic echinocandin on the development of neurological complications in patients receiving busulfan-containing conditioning regimens for stem cell transplantation: A single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Although neurotoxicity is a major adverse event associated with busulfan, little information is available regarding the association between drug interactions and neurological symptoms during busulfan-based regimens. This study evaluated the association between prophylactic echinocandins and neurological complications in patients receiving busulfan-containing conditioning regimens for stem cell transplantation.

METHODS

We retrospectively included consecutive patients who administered intravenous busulfan as a conditioning regimen at our facility between 2007 and 2022. Prophylactic echinocandin use was defined as the use of an echinocandin antifungal drug to prevent invasive fungal disease in SCT recipients. The primary outcome was the incidence of neurological complications within 7 days of busulfan initiation and was compared between the echinocandin group (patients received prophylactic echinocandin) and nonechinocandin group (patients received prophylactic antifungal drugs other than echinocandin and those without antifungal prophylaxis).

RESULTS

Among the 59 patients included in this study, the incidence of neurological complications in the echinocandin (n = 26) and nonechinocandin groups (n = 33) was 30.8% and 63.6%, respectively. We observed a negative association between prophylactic echinocandin use and the development of neurological complications after adjusting for the propensity score for receiving prophylactic echinocandins (adjusted odds ratio 0.294, 95% confidence interval 0.090 to 0.959). We observed a lower incidence of neurological complications in the echinocandin group than in the nonechinocandin group.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggested that the choice of antifungal prophylaxis is associated with busulfan neurotoxicity.

Individualizing busulfan dose in specific populations and evaluating the risk of pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions

INTRODUCTION

Busulfan is an alkylating agent widely used in the conditioning of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation possessing a complex metabolism and a large interindividual and intra-individual variability, especially in children. Combined with the strong rationale of busulfan PK/PD relationships, factors altering its clearance (e.g., weight, age, and GST-A genetic polymorphism mainly) can also affect clinical outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to provide an overview of the current knowledge on busulfan pharmacokinetics, its pharmacokinetics variabilities in pediatric populations, drug-drug interactions (DDI), and their consequences regarding dose individualization. This review was based on medical literature up until October 2021.

EXPERT OPINION

To ensure effective busulfan exposure in pediatrics, different weight-based nomograms have been established to determine busulfan dosage and provided improved results (65 - 80% of patients correctly exposed). In addition to nomograms, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of busulfan measuring plasmatic concentrations to estimate busulfan pharmacokinetic parameters can be used. TDM is now widely carried out in routine practices and aims to ensure the targeting of the reported therapeutic windows by individualizing busulfan dosing based on the clearance estimations from a previous dose.

Optimal regimen of levetiracetam for prevention of busulfan-induced seizure in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A review of available evidence

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to summarize the available data and offer a practical recommendation regarding the optimal regimen of levetiracetam (LEV) for the prevention of busulfan-induced seizure (BIS) in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

DATA SOURCES

Published articles by searching databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect) were reviewed. All types of original studies performed in pediatric and adult populations have been investigated and required data was extracted.

DATA SUMMARY

Eleven articles were eligible to be included in this review. A loading dose was not used in any of the studies. LEV had been started from 6 to 48 h before busulfan (Bu) initiation and continued up to 24 to 48 h after its termination. The dose range of LEV was 10 to 20 mg/kg/day divided every 12 h in pediatrics and 500 to 1000 mg twice daily in adults. Both oral and intravenous (IV) routes of administration were used. Except for three studies, no seizure had occurred in patients who had received LEV.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the available evidence, LEV with the dose range from 500 to 1000 mg twice daily in adults and 10 mg/kg twice daily (20 mg/kg/day in 2 divided doses) in children orally or IV started from 6 to 24 h before Bu initiation up to 24 to 48 h after the last dose of Bu seems to prevent BIS appropriately. More prospective clinical trials with a larger population are needed to validate the optimal dosing of LEV for BIS prophylaxis in patients undergoing HSCT.

Impact of valproic acid on busulfan pharmacokinetics: In vitro assessment of potential drug-drug interaction

Busulfan (Bu) is an alkylating agent commonly used at high doses in the preparative regimens of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). It has been shown that such high doses of Bu are associated with generalized seizures which are usually managed by prophylactic antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) such as valproic acid (VPA). Being a strong enzyme inhibitor, VPA may inhibit Bu metabolism and thus increase its potential toxicity. Despite its clinical relevance, the potential interaction between Bu and VPA has not yet been evaluated. The aim of the present study was to assess and evaluate the potential drug-drug interaction (DDI) between Bu and VPA. This study was carried out by incubating Bu in laboratory-prepared rat liver-subcellular fractions including S9, microsomes, and cytosol, alone or in combination with VPA. The liver fractions were prepared by differential centrifugation of the liver homogenate. Analysis of Bu was employed using a fully validated LC-MS/MS method. The validation parameters were within the proposed limits of the international standards guidelines. Bu metabolic stability was assessed by incubating Bu at a concentration of 8 μg/ml in liver fractions at 37°C. There were significant reductions in Bu levels in S9 and cytosolic fractions, whereas these levels were not significantly (P ˃ 0.05) changed in microsomes. However, in presence of VPA, Bu levels in S9 fraction remained unchanged. These results indicated, for the first time, the potential metabolic interaction of Bu and VPA being in S9 only. This could be explained by inhibiting Bu cytosolic metabolism by the interaction with VPA either by sharing the same metabolic enzyme or the required co-factor. In conclusion, the present findings suggest, for the first time, a potential DDI between Bu and VPA in vitro using rat liver fractions. Further investigations are warranted in human-derived liver fractions to confirm such an interaction.

Simultaneously measure the concentrations of busulfan and phenytoin in human plasma using an HPLC-MS/MS method: Application to the TDM for children underwent hematological stem cell transplantation

In this work, a simple and rapid high performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) method was developed and validated to carry out the simultaneous measurement of busulfan (BU) and phenytoin (PHT) in the plasma of children. In this method, plasma sample could be prepared by one-step protein precipitation using 1 mL of methanol/water (1:1, v/v). After centrifugation (14,500 rpm, 5 min, 4 °C), 10 μL of the supernatant was injected into a Hypersil Gold C18 column (150 × 2.1 mm, 5 μm, Thermo Fisher Scientific) for separation by gradient elution. Quantification was carried out using multiple reactions monitoring (MRM) under positive scan mode. In the method verification, the calibration curves of BU and PHT showed satisfactory linearity (r > 0.99) at the concentration ranging from 0.02 to 20 μg mL−1. The accuracy and precision were tested at four concentration levels (including the LLOQ level) with the relative error (RE) ranging from −0.80% to 11.45% and coefficient of variation (CV) between 0.93% and 7.74%. There was no pronounced matrix effect to interfere with the quantitative analysis. Compared to determine BU and PHT using two individual methods, less pre-treatment process, labor and blood sample volume are required in this proposed method. Finally, this method was successfully applied to the therapeutic drug monitoring of BU and PHT for children underwent hematological stem cell transplantation.

Pharmacokinetic considerations surrounding the use of levetiracetam for seizure prophylaxis in neurocritical care - an overview

INTRODUCTION

Levetiracetam (LEV) is one of the most widely used anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in clinical practice. This is due both to a different mechanism of action when compared to other ASMs and its easy handling. Indeed, because of its interesting pharmacokinetic properties, it is often used outside of the labelled indications, notably in the neurocritical setting as prophylaxis of epileptic seizures.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search was conducted and the most relevant studies on the pharmacokinetic properties of LEV were selected by two independent investigators. Current evidence on the use of ASM prophylaxis in the neurocritical setting was also reviewed, highlighting and discussing the strengths and limits of LEV as drug of choice for anti-epileptic prophylaxis in this scenario.

EXPERT OPINION

LEV has a "near-ideal" pharmacokinetic profile, which makes it an attractive drug for ASM prophylaxis in neurocritical care. However, current recommendations restrict ASMs prophylaxis to very selected circumstances and the role of LEV is marginal. Moreover, studies are generally designed to compare LEV versus phenytoin, whereas studies comparing LEV versus placebo are lacking. Further randomized trials will be needed to better elucidate LEV utility and its neuroprotective role in the neurocritical setting.

Phenytoin as seizure prophylaxis in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with busulfan conditioning

Background

Phenytoin is widely used as primary seizure prophylaxis in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients undergoing myeloablative conditioning with busulfan. Because of the negative side effects of phenytoin, we abandoned phenytoin use in these patients. To assess the effect of this change, we performed a retrospective cohort study on all patients receiving busulfan.

Methods

We included 139 patients who underwent conditioning with busulfan for hematopoietic stem cell therapy. We registered the use of phenytoin, as well as the occurrence of seizures, until 7 days after busulfan administration. We compared seizure incidence between patients who received phenytoin and those who did not.

Results

Of the 43 patients who received phenytoin prophylaxis, four patients (9.3%) had a seizure during the conditioning regimen, of which two patients had cerebral non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Furthermore, all these 4 patients had very high levels of phenytoin (intoxication). Of the 96 patients that did not receive phenytoin prophylaxis, three patients (3.1%) had a seizure, and one of these patients had an undefined cerebral lesion. Phenytoin did not relate to seizure prevention in a logistic regression analysis.

Conclusion

We conclude that phenytoin prophylaxis in patients treated with busulfan is obsolete and possibly harmful, as phenytoin intoxication can occur. We recommend discontinuing the use of phenytoin as primary seizure prophylaxis in these patients.

Decreased Systemic Busulfan Exposure After Oral Dosing With Concomitant Levetiracetam Compared With Phenytoin

BACKGROUND

Busulfan (Bu) conditioning used in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation may induce seizures, and prophylactic antiepileptic treatment is recommended. Following updated guidelines, in August 2019, the adult hematopoietic stem cell transplantation department of the Rambam Health Care Campus (Haifa, Israel) switched the antiepileptic prophylaxis protocol from phenytoin to oral levetiracetam during oral Bu conditioning. The aim of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetic parameters of Bu after oral dosing between patients receiving phenytoin and those receiving levetiracetam prophylaxis.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective cohort study in adults undergoing myoablative conditioning with oral Bu between August 2018 and August 2020. Bu pharmacokinetic parameters (AUC0-6, C0, Cmax, and Tmax) were compared in patients treated with phenytoin comedication (during the year before the change in policy) and levetiracetam comedication (during the year after the change). Potential confounders were accounted for including age, azole comedication, and body weight.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in demographic and clinical parameters or weight-corrected Bu dose between the phenytoin group (n = 28) and the levetiracetam group (n = 25). There was no difference in the rate of voriconazole comedication, but fluconazole was more common in the phenytoin group (P = 0.026). The median AUC0-6 was significantly lower in the levetiracetam group (949 μM*min; IQR = 806 to 1101 μM*min) than in the phenytoin group (1208 μM*min; IQR = 1087 to 1389 μM*min; P < 0.001). This is a clinically significant difference of 258 μM*min (21%). Azole use was not associated with Bu exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that, after treatment with oral Bu, oral levetiracetam comedication is associated with reduced systemic exposure compared with phenytoin comedication, possibly because of decreased bioavailability.

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.

Relevant pharmacological interactions between alkylating agents and antiepileptic drugs: Preclinical and clinical data

Seizures are relatively common in cancer patients, and co-administration of chemotherapeutic and antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is highly probable and necessary in many cases. Nonetheless, clinically relevant interactions between chemotherapeutic drugs and AEDs are rarely summarized and pharmacologically described. These interactions can cause insufficient tumor and seizure control or lead to unforeseen toxicity. This review focused on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between alkylating agents and AEDs, helping readers to make a rational choice of treatment optimization, and thus improving patients' quality of life. As an example, phenobarbital, phenytoin, and carbamazepine, by increasing the hepatic metabolism of cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide and busulfan, yield smaller peak concentrations and a reduced area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of the prodrugs; alongside, the maximum concentration and AUC of their active products were increased with the possible onset of severe adverse drug reactions. On the other side, valproic acid, acting as histone deacetylase inhibitor, showed synergistic effects with temozolomide when tested in glioblastoma. The present review is aimed at providing evidence that may offer useful suggestions for rational pharmacological strategies in patients with seizures symptoms undertaking alkylating agents. Firstly, clinicians should avoid the use of enzyme-inducing AEDs in combination with alkylating agents and prefer the use of AEDs, such as levetiracetam, that have a low or no impact on hepatic metabolism. Secondly, a careful therapeutic drug monitoring of both alkylating agents and AEDs (and their active metabolites) is necessary to maintain therapeutic ranges and to avoid serious adverse reactions.

Higher Starting Dose of Ciclosporin Optimized Therapeutic Levels in Patients Receiving Phenytoin for Busulfan-induced Seizure Prophylaxis

Background

Despite understanding the drug-drug interaction between phenytoin and ciclosporin (CsA), there is no recommended CsA dosing in patients receiving phenytoin as seizure prophylaxis in busulfan-based conditioning regimens. This drug-drug interaction has resulted in patients with sub-therapeutic levels at day 0 (D0) of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) and at risk for acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD).

Objective/Methods

A single-center historical-control study was conducted at Singapore General Hospital between March 2010 and July 2019 to evaluate a new dosing strategy. Patients with phenytoin received a higher starting dose of intravenous CsA (4 mg/kg/dose twice daily instead of 3 mg/kg/dose twice daily). The primary endpoint of this study was to determine the proportion of patients with therapeutic CsA levels at D0. Secondary endpoints included median CsA level on D-1 and D0, time to the therapeutic target, incidence and severity of aGVHD, and safety profile.

Results

A total of 91 patients were included in this study. Patients with therapeutic CsA at D0 was higher (66.7%) in the study arm than in the control arm (24.7 %) (p = 0.006). The median CsA concentration at D0 in the study arm was 284 ng/mL (range, 144-441 ng/mL) as compared to the control arm, 255 ng/mL (range, 104-580). There was no difference in the time to therapeutic range and the cumulative incidence of aGVHD. There were no significant differences in the safety outcomes.

Conclusion

The new strategy with higher dosing based on the actual body weight should be adopted as it resulted in a higher proportion of patients with therapeutic CsA at D0, without an increase in CsA-related adverse events.

Neuroprotective Efficacy of Prophylactic Antiepileptic Therapies in Busulfan Conditioning Regimen

Busulfan (BU) is commonly used in the anticancer treatment and bone marrow/hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (BM/HSCT) conditioning regimen. This study aimed to evaluate the neuroprotective efficacy of antiepileptic therapies in the BU conditioning regimen. Patients who underwent BM/HSCT between January 1, 2009, and January 1, 2014, were evaluated retrospectively. Diagnosis, demographic characteristics, neurological side effects, electroencephalography (EEG) abnormalities, and antiepileptic drugs were determined. Levetiracetam was given to 49% and phenytoin to 23% of patients as antiepileptic prophylaxis. After BU treatment, seizures developed in three patients, posterior reversible leukoencephalopathy in two patients, and peripheral neuropathy in two patients. Forty-five patients who underwent EEG before and after BU treatment were identified. The effects of antiepileptic prophylaxis over the electroencephalographic abnormalities after the BU conditioning regimen were found to be not different (p = 0.491). Neurological side effects and electroencephalographic abnormalities following BU conditioning regimen under antiepileptic prophylaxis are comparable.

Epileptic Seizures After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Technique in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has greatly advanced over the past decades, which has led to an increase in the number of patients receiving transplantation, but the complex procedure places these transplant recipients at high risk of a large spectrum of complications including neurologic involvement. As a common manifestation of neurological disorders, epileptic seizures after transplantation have been of great concern to clinicians because it seriously affects the survival rate and living quality of those recipients. The aim of this review is to elucidate the incidence of seizures after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and to further summarize in detail its etiologies, possible mechanisms, clinical manifestations, therapeutic schedule, and prognosis, hoping to improve doctors' understandings of concurrent seizures following transplantation, so they can prevent, process, and eventually improve the survival and outlook for patients in a timely manner and correctly.

Comparison of levetiracetam versus phenytoin/fosphenytoin for busulfan seizure prophylaxis at a pediatric institution

INTRODUCTION

Busulfan is a chemotherapy agent used in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) conditioning regimens. Busulfan is associated with tonic-clonic seizures in ~10% of patients if administered without seizure prophylaxis. Historically, phenytoin was the most commonly utilized seizure prophylaxis agent; however, phenytoin is associated with CYP450 drug interactions and potentially increases the clearance of busulfan. Levetiracetam is being used more recently for busulfan seizure prophylaxis and is not associated with drug-drug interactions; however, data supporting use in pediatric patients are limited. The primary objective is to determine whether there is any difference in seizure rates or safety profile between phenytoin and levetiracetam when used for seizure prophylaxis.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review including patients who received busulfan between 2010 and 2019 were identified. The data were evaluated to compare the incidence of busulfan-induced seizures in HSCT patients receiving either phenytoin or levetiracetam and to determine the impact of drug-drug interactions on treatment outcomes/adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 342 patients were included with a median age of six years. Overall, five patients within the phenytoin group (n = 126) (4%) and zero patients in the levetiracetam group (n = 216) experienced a seizure (P = .007). There were no differences in liver enzyme elevations, recurrence rates of primary disease, and veno-occlusive disease.

CONCLUSION

Levetiracetam is effective at preventing seizures associated with busulfan administration with no clinically significant adverse effects when compared to phenytoin.

Oral levetiracetam for prevention of busulfan-induced seizures in adult hematopoietic cell transplant

Background Antiseizure prophylaxis is recommended when high-dose of busulfan is given as part of the conditioning regimens in the allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Phenytoin has been widely used but its pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics profile makes its use complicated. Levetiracetam is a safe, effective and well tolerated antiseizure drug with good results in epileptic patients. Objective To describe our experience using oral (p.o) levetiracetam 1000 mg every 12 h (q12h) as an antiseizure prophylaxis, evaluating its preventive effects and adverse event rates after a high-dose of intravenous (i.v.) busulfan, as part of the conditioning regimen Methods Retrospective study of patients who underwent an allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplant with a conditioning regimen based on high-dose of busulfan between January and November 2017. Results The study population comprised 36 patients, of whom 18 (50%) had acute myeloid leukemia as diagnosis. No seizures occurred in any patient. Levetiracetam was well tolerated and no serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions Our results suggest that giving levetiracetam at 1000 mg q12h p.o starting 12 h before the administration of i.v. busulfan until 48 h after the last dose, can be used as an alternative in the prevention of busulfan-induced seizures in adults.

Association of Antiepileptic Medications with Outcomes after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation with Busulfan/Cyclophosphamide Conditioning

High-dose busulfan (BU) followed by high-dose cyclophosphamide (CY) before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) has long been used as treatment for hematologic malignancies. Administration of phenytoin or newer alternative antiepileptic medications (AEMs) prevents seizures caused by BU. Phenytoin induces enzymes that increase exposure to active CY metabolites in vivo, whereas alternative AEMs do not have this effect. Lower exposure to active CY metabolites with the use of alternative AEMs could decrease the risk of toxicity but might increase the risk of recurrent malignancy after HCT. Previous studies have not determined whether outcomes with alternative AEMs differ from those with phenytoin in patients treated with BU/CY before allogeneic HCT. We studied a cohort of 2155 patients, including 1460 treated with phenytoin and 695 treated with alternative AEMs, who received BU/CY before allogeneic HCT between 2004 and 2014. We found no differences suggesting decreased overall survival or relapse-free survival or increased risks of relapse, nonrelapse mortality, acute or chronic graft-versus-host disease, or regimen-related toxicity associated with the use of alternative AEMs compared with phenytoin. The risk of dialysis was lower in the alternative AEM group than in the phenytoin group. Alternative AEMs are safe for prevention of seizures after BU administration and can avoid the undesirable toxicities and drug interactions caused by phenytoin.