Intravenous levetiracetam as treatment for status epilepticus

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.

Clinical Evaluation of Levetiracetam in the Treatment of Epilepsy

Objectives

Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder that is characterized by episodes of seizure.

Methods

In this study, patients with status epilepticus in the Intensive Care Unit of the Department of Neurology of Qujing First People's Hospital were collected and treated with levetiracetam injection, continuous bedside EEG monitoring (cEEG) technology, and quantitative EEG (qEEG) technique. The inhibitory effects of different doses of levetiracetam injection and sodium valproate on abnormal discharge, the improvement of clinical symptoms, the incidence of adverse reactions, and prognosis were monitored, analyzed, and compared.

Results

Compared with the experimental group of sodium valproate, 1000 mg/d levetiracetam group and 1500 mg/d levetiracetam group had a high probability of successful symptom control and a short control time. The patients had a low recurrence rate and a long recurrence time, and the probability of abnormal discharge in EEG was low.

Conclusions

The recording results showed that levetiracetam could significantly inhibit the abnormal discharge of patients. Compared with sodium valproate, high-dose levetiracetam is a drug with a rapid effect, good effect, and long action time.

Status Epilepticus-Work-Up and Management in Children

Status epilepticus (SE) is one of the most common neurological emergencies in children and has a mortality of 2 to 4%. Admissions for SE are very resource-consuming, especially in refractory and super-refractory SE. An increasing understanding of the pathophysiology of SE leaves room for improving SE treatment protocols, including medication choice and timing. Selecting the most efficacious medications and giving them in a timely manner may improve outcomes. Benzodiazepines are commonly used as first line and they can be used in the prehospital setting, where most SE episodes begin. The diagnostic work-up should start simultaneously to initial treatment, or as soon as possible, to detect potentially treatable causes of SE. Although most etiologies are recognized after the first evaluation, the detection of more unusual causes may become challenging in selected cases. SE is a life-threatening medical emergency in which prompt and efficacious treatment may improve outcomes. We provide a summary of existing evidence to guide clinical decisions regarding the work-up and treatment of SE in pediatric patients.

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.

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.

Identification of Risk Factors for Refractory Status Epilepticus

Objective: The objective of this study is to identify risk factors for the development of refractory status epilepticus (RSE). Methods: This was an IRB-approved, retrospective case control study that included patients admitted with status epilepticus between August 1, 2014, and July 31, 2017. Cases were defined as those with RSE, and controls were those who did not develop RSE. A bivariate analysis was conducted comparing those with RSE and those without RSE. A stepwise logistic regression model was constructed predicting for progression to RSE. Risk factors for progression to RSE were extrapolated from this model. Results: A total of 184 patients met inclusion criteria for the study (99 controls and 49 cases). After adjusting for covariates in the logistic regression, patients with convulsive seizures had a lower odds of developing RSE (odds ratio [OR] = 0.375; 95% CI = 0.148 to 0.951; P = 0.0388). Treatment with benzodiazepines plus levetiracetam had a higher odds of developing RSE (OR = 3.804; 95% CI = 1.523 to 9.499; P = 0.0042). Conclusion and Relevance: This study found that patients with convulsive seizures had a lower odds of developing RSE. In addition, patients treated with benzodiazepines and levetiracetam had a higher odds of developing RSE. This information can be used to potentially identify patients at higher risk of developing RSE, so that treatment can be modified to reduce morbidity and mortality. These results may warrant further investigation into the effectiveness of levetiracetam as a first-line agent for the treatment of SE.

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.

Emergency Neurological Life Support: Status Epilepticus

Patients with prolonged or rapidly recurring convulsions lasting more than 5 min should be considered to be in status epilepticus (SE) and receive immediate resuscitation. Although there are few randomized clinical trials, available evidence and experience suggest that early and aggressive treatment of SE improves patient outcomes, for which reason this was chosen as an Emergency Neurological Life Support protocol. The current approach to the emergency treatment of SE emphasizes rapid initiation of adequate doses of first line therapy, as well as accelerated second line anticonvulsant drugs and induced coma when these fail, coupled with admission to a unit capable of neurological critical care and electroencephalography monitoring. This protocol will focus on the initial treatment of SE but also review subsequent steps in the protocol once the patient is hospitalized.

Emergency treatment with levetiracetam or phenytoin in status epilepticus in children-the EcLiPSE study: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) is the most common life-threatening neurological emergency in childhood. These children are also at risk of significant morbidity, with acute and chronic impact on the family and the health and social care systems. The current recommended first-choice, second-line treatment in children aged 6 months and above is intravenous phenytoin (fosphenytoin in the USA), although there is a lack of evidence for its use and it is associated with significant side effects. Emerging evidence suggests that intravenous levetiracetam may be effective as a second-line agent for CSE, and fewer adverse effects have been described. This trial therefore aims to determine whether intravenous phenytoin or levetiracetam is more effective, and safer, in treating childhood CSE.

Methods/design

This is a phase IV, multi-centre, parallel group, randomised controlled, open-label trial. Following treatment for CSE with first-line treatment, children with ongoing seizures are randomised to receive either phenytoin (20 mg/kg, maximum 2 g) or levetiracetam (40 mg/kg, maximum 2.5 g) intravenously. The primary outcome measure is the cessation of all visible signs of CSE as determined by the treating clinician. Secondary outcome measures include the need for further anti-seizure medications or rapid sequence induction for ongoing CSE, admission to critical care areas, and serious adverse reactions. Patients are recruited without prior consent, with deferred consent sought at an appropriate time for the family. The primary analysis will be by intention-to-treat. The primary outcome is a time to event outcome and a sample size of 140 participants in each group will have 80% power to detect an increase in CSE cessation rates from 60% to 75%. Our total sample size of 308 randomised and treated participants will allow for 10% loss to follow-up.

Discussion

This clinical trial will determine whether phenytoin or levetiracetam is more effective as an intravenous second-line agent for CSE, and provide evidence for management recommendations. In addition, this trial will also provide data on which of these therapies is safer in this setting.

Trial registration

ISRCTN identifier, ISRCTN22567894. Registered on 27 August 2015

EudraCT identifier, 2014-002188-13. Registered on 21 May 2014

NIHR HTA Grant: 12/127/134

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2010-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Management of status epilepticus

Status epilepticus is a neurologic and medical emergency manifested by prolonged seizure activity or multiple seizures without return to baseline. It is associated with substantial medical cost, morbidity, and mortality. There is a spectrum of severity dependent on the type of seizure, underlying pathology, comorbidities, and appropriate and timely medical management. This chapter discusses the evolving definitions of status epilepticus and multiple patient and clinical factors which influence outcome. The pathophysiology of status epilepticus is reviewed to provide a better understanding of the mechanisms which contribute to status epilepticus, as well as the potential long-term effects. The clinical presentations of different types of status epilepticus in adults are discussed, with emphasis on the hospital course and management of the most dangerous type, generalized convulsive status epilepticus. Strategies for the evaluation and management of status epilepticus are provided based on available evidence from clinical trials and recommendations from the Neurocritical Care Society and the European Federation of Neurological Societies.

Phenobarbital Versus Valproate for Generalized Convulsive Status Epilepticus in Adults: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial in China

OBJECTIVE

Although generalized convulsive status epilepticus (GCSE) is a life-threatening emergency, evidence-based data to guide initial drug treatment choices are lacking in the Chinese population. We conducted this prospective, randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of intravenous phenobarbital and valproate in patients with GCSE.

METHODS

After the failure of first-line diazepam treatment, Chinese adult patients with GCSE were randomized to receive either intravenous phenobarbital (standard doses, low rate) or valproate (standard). Successful treatment was considered when clinical and electroencephalographic seizure activity ceased. Adverse events following treatment, as well as the neurological outcomes at discharge and 3 months later, were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, 73 cases were enrolled in the study. Intravenous phenobarbital was successful in 81.1% of patients, and intravenous valproate was successful in 44.4% of patients (p < 0.05). The relapse rate of status epilepticus within 24 h of receiving phenobarbital (6.7%) was significantly lower than that in patients receiving valproate (31.3%), and the total number of adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups (p > 0.05). In the phenobarbital group, two patients (5.4%) required ventilation and two patients (5.4%) developed serious hypotension. The neurological outcomes of the phenobarbital group were generally better than those of the valproate group; however, no significant differences were observed between phenobarbital and valproate with respect to mortality (8.1 vs. 16.6%) at discharge, or mortality (16.2 vs. 30.5%) and post-symptomatic epilepsy (26.3 vs. 42.8%) at 3-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous phenobarbital appears to be more effective than intravenous valproate for Chinese adult patients with GCSE. The occurrence of serious respiratory depression and hypotension caused by phenobarbital was reduced by decreasing the intravenous infusion rate; however, even at a lower infusion rate than typically used in other institutions, intravenous phenobarbital resulted in more serious adverse events than intravenous valproate. The better outcomes in the phenobarbital group compared with the valproate group suggest that phenobarbital should be considered for the early successful treatment of GCSE.

Should Barbiturates be Used in Refractory Status Epilepticus?

Status epilepticus (SE) is a frequent neurologic emergency, one third of patients do not respond to treatment with benzodiazepines followed by a second antiepileptic drug. While initial treatment of complex partial SE is accordant to that of generalized convulsive SE, further management of refractory SE depends on the risk for acute complications and long-term clinical consequences. These risks are low in complex partial SE; therefore, in this clinical form anesthetics commonly are not used. Generalized convulsive SE-even in its early course-is a potentially life-threatening condition; therefore, prompt use of anesthetics is urgently required. Drugs of choice are barbiturates, midazolam, and propofol, all of which exhibit specific advantages and disadvantages. Up to now, data from clinical studies do not allow to prefer or to discard one of these anesthetics, therefore also barbiturates still should be used in refractory SE. A widely accepted in-house protocol for the management of initial and refractory SE is highly recommended.

Emergency Neurological Life Support: Status Epilepticus

Patients with prolonged or rapidly recurring convulsions lasting more than 5 min are in status epilepticus (SE) and require immediate resuscitation. Although there are relatively few randomized clinical trials, available evidence and experience suggest that early and aggressive treatment of SE improves patient outcomes, for which reason this was chosen as an Emergency Neurological Life Support protocol. The current approach to the emergency treatment of SE emphasizes rapid initiation of adequate doses of first-line therapy, as well as accelerated second-line anticonvulsant drugs and induced coma when these fail, coupled with admission to a unit capable of neurological critical care and electroencephalography monitoring. This protocol will focus on the initial treatment of SE but also review subsequent steps in the protocol once the patient is hospitalized.

Adult Status Epilepticus: A Review of the Prehospital and Emergency Department Management

Seizures are a common presentation in the prehospital and emergency department setting and status epilepticus represents an emergency neurologic condition. The classification and various types of seizures are numerous. The objectives of this narrative literature review focuses on adult patients with a presentation of status epilepticus in the prehospital and emergency department setting. In summary, benzodiazepines remain the primary first line therapeutic agent in the management of status epilepticus, however, there are new agents that may be appropriate for the management of status epilepticus as second- and third-line pharmacological agents.

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.

Intravenous levetiracetam treatment in status epilepticus: A prospective study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of intravenous (IV) levetiracetam (LEV) in the treatment of status epilepticus (SE) and treatment outcomes.

METHODS

This study was conducted on patients, who were classified according to the clinical characteristics of their seizures, in the emergency department, neurology, and other services of our hospital. Patients were administrated IV LEV for the treatment of their SE after failing to respond to IV diazepam.

RESULTS

We prospectively investigated 30 patients, 16 females and 14 males whose ages ranged between 17 and 90 years (55.6 ± 19.6). Fourteen patients had convulsive SE (CSE), 11 had nonconvulsive SE (NCSE), and 5 had epilepsia partialis continua (EPC). The patients were given IV LEV with dosages ranging between 1000 and 4000 mg/day. Twenty-nine of the patients continued to receive LEV orally as maintenance treatment. The most common etiologies were cerebrovascular diseases (n = 7) and brain tumors (n = 6). SE was terminated in 23 (76.6%) patients. In the 12 months that followed SE, 9 of our patients (30%) died and 4 patients could not be contacted. Fifteen patients reported having no adverse effects, whereas three had mild adverse effects. No major adverse effects or complications causing disability were observed in twelve patients who were unconscious.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with IV LEV is well-tolerated and effective both in focal and generalized SE. IV LEV has the combined advantage of efficacy, safety, and ease of use, which qualifies it to be the first choice after benzodiazepines (BZD) in the treatment of SE. This is the first prospective study of IV LEV treatment in status epilepticus and has the longest follow-up period, one year.

Intravenous levetiracetam in clinical practice--Results from an independent registry

PURPOSE

Most common clinical studies with antiepileptic drugs do not reflect medical everyday practice due to their strict in- and exclusion criteria and specifications of treatment regimens. Here we present a large non-interventional registry with the intention to evaluate the spectrum of applications in daily use and the efficacy and tolerability of intravenously given levetiracetam (LEV-iv).

METHODS

In a prospective approach of 17 neurological and neuropediatric centres in Germany LEV-iv treated patients of all ages were included over a period of 10 months. The observational period was 10 days with daily documentation of LEV-iv administration, type and frequency of seizures, currently used drugs and doses, and adverse events (AEs). In addition, treatment efficacy and tolerability were assessed by patients and physicians at study end as well as practicability of LEV-iv using a five-step scale.

RESULTS

In 95 patients LEV-iv was administered, 93 were included into the analysis. The median LEV-iv dose was 1500 mg (range 110-6000 mg) per day. Median age was 66 years (range 0.7-90.3 years). The majority of patients (n=70, 75%) suffered from status epilepticus (SE, n=55, 59%) and acute seizure clusters (n=15, 16%). Of those with SE, 41 patients (75%) had SE for the first time. Acute seizure clusters and SE terminated in 83% after LEV-iv administration. A total of 29 adverse events were reported in 17 of the 95 patients from the safety set. Ten of these were at least possibly related to LEV-iv treatment. Slight decrease of blood pressure during the infusion (3 patients each) was captured most frequently. No serious side effect was observed. Physicians rated the efficacy and tolerability of LEV-iv treatment as good or very good in 78% and 82% of the cases, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this large observational study of everyday practise the use of LEV-iv exhibited a remarkable good response and tolerability in patients with acute onset seizures (mostly SE). Further randomized controlled studies, like the established status epilepticus trial (ESET) are needed to confirm these findings.

Doing challenging research studies in a patient-centred way: a qualitative study to inform a randomised controlled trial in the paediatric emergency care setting

OBJECTIVE

To inform the design of a randomised controlled trial (called EcLiPSE) to improve the treatment of children with convulsive status epilepticus (CSE). EcLiPSE requires the use of a controversial deferred consent process.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview and focus group study.

SETTING

8 UK support groups for parents of children who have chronic or acute health conditions and experience of paediatric emergency care.

PARTICIPANTS

17 parents, of whom 11 participated in telephone interviews (10 mothers, 1 father) and 6 in a focus group (5 mothers, 1 father). 6 parents (35%) were bereaved and 7 (41%) had children who had experienced seizures, including CSE.

RESULTS

Most parents had not heard of deferred consent, yet they supported its use to enable the progress of emergency care research providing a child's safety was not compromised by the research. Parents were reassured by tailored explanation, which focused their attention on aspects of EcLiPSE that addressed their priorities and concerns. These aspects included the safety of the interventions under investigation and how both EcLiPSE interventions are used in routine clinical practice. Parents made recommendations about the appropriate timing of a recruitment discussion, the need to individualise approaches to recruiting bereaved parents and the use of clear written information.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provided information to help ensure that a challenging trial was patient centred in its design. We will use our findings to help EcLiPSE practitioners to: discuss potentially threatening trial safety information with parents, use open-ended questions and prompts to identify their priorities and concerns and clarify related aspects of written trial information to assist understanding and decision-making.

The safety and tolerability of different intravenous administrations of levetiracetam, bolus versus infusion, in intensive care unit patients

This study reviews our experience with the safety and tolerability of levetiracetam (LVM) with different methods of intravenous administration in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. We used retrospective chart review to identify 33 ICU patients who received intravenous LVM for treatment of seizures. Collected data included age, gender, diagnosis on admission, dosing regimen, documented seizure activity, adverse reactions, concomitant use of other antiepileptic drugs, and condition on discharge. A total of 33 ICU patients were given intravenous (IV) LVM as add-on treatment to standard regimen for treatment of breakthrough seizures or status epilepticus or given as preventive medication postoperatively. Among these 33 patients, 16 received intravenous LVM as bolus, and 17 received intravenous LVM as continuous infusion. Safety and tolerability of intravenous LVM were evaluated on the basis of the occurrence of adverse or side effects reported in daily progress notes of the physicians and nurses. There were no significant adverse or side effects reported in daily progress notes. The addition of intravenous LVM to the standard regimen for controlling seizures in ICU patients seems feasible and tolerable.

The relative effectiveness of five antiepileptic drugs in treatment of benzodiazepine-resistant convulsive status epilepticus: a meta-analysis of published studies

PURPOSE

Systematic evaluation of published evidence-base of the efficacy of five antiepileptic drugs - lacosamide, levetiracetam, valproate, phenytoin and phenobarbital - in convulsive benzodiazepine-resistant status epilepticus.

METHODS

Data sources included electronic databases, personal communication, and back tracing of references in pertinent studies. These were prospective and retrospective human studies presenting original data for participants with convulsive benzodiazepine-resistant status epilepticus. Interventions were intravenous lacosamide, levetiracetam, phenobarbital, phenytoin and valproate. Outcome measured is clinically detectable cessation of seizure activity. Level-of-evidence was assessed according to Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine and The Cochrane Collaboration's Tool for Assessment of Risk. Twenty seven studies (798 cases of convulsive status epilepticus) were identified and 22 included in a meta-analysis. Random-effects analysis of dichotomous outcome of a single group estimate (proportion), with inverse variance weighting, was implemented. Several sources of clinical and methodological heterogeneity were identified.

RESULTS

Efficacy of levetiracetam was 68.5% (95% CI: 56.2-78.7%), phenobarbital 73.6% (95% CI: 58.3-84.8%), phenytoin 50.2% (95% CI: 34.2-66.1%) and valproate 75.7% (95% CI: 63.7-84.8%). Lacosamide studies were excluded from the meta-analysis due to insufficient data.

CONCLUSION

Valproate, levetiracetam and phenobarbital can all be used as first line therapy in benzodiazepine-resistant status epilepticus. The evidence does not support the first-line use of phenytoin. There is not enough evidence to support the routine use of lacosamide. Randomized controlled trials are urgently needed.

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.

Review of Levetiracetam as a First Line Treatment in Status Epilepticus in the Adult Patients - What Do We Know so Far?

With the advent of new antiepileptic drugs comes the potential for significant advances in the emergent management of status epilepticus. Traditional antiepileptic drugs possess side effect profiles that may limit their clinical utility or lead to increased patient morbidity or mortality. The relatively recent development of levetiracetam shows promise for effective control of acute status epilepticus in adults, but current objective data of its use as a first-line agent for control of status is quite limited. This paper serves to examine existing literature while considering levetiracetam as a first-line therapy in status in the adult patient population. Although existing studies are narrow in their scope, the present data lay a substantial foundation for further investigation of levetiracetam as a primary therapy in acute status epilepticus.

Emergency neurological life support: status epilepticus

Patients with prolonged or rapidly recurring convulsions lasting more than 5 min are in status epilepticus (SE) and require immediate resuscitation. Although there are relatively few randomized clinical trials, available evidence and experience suggest that early and aggressive treatment of SE improves patient outcomes, for which reason it was chosen as an Emergency Neurologic Life Support protocol. The current approach to the emergency treatment of SE emphasizes rapid initiation of adequate doses of first line therapy, as well as accelerated second line anticonvulsant drugs and induced coma when these fail, coupled with admission to a unit capable of neurologic critical care and electroencephalography monitoring. This protocol not only will focus on the initial treatment of SE but also review subsequent steps in the protocol once the patient is hospitalized.

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.

Status epilepticus: a review, with emphasis on refractory cases

Status epilepticus is among the most dramatic of clinical presentations encountered by emergency room physicians, neurologists, neurosurgeons and intensivists. While progress in its management has been aided significantly with an increasing number of effective treatment options, improved diagnostic methods and more effective monitoring, poor outcomes and diagnostic failures are still frequently encountered. Refractory cases still carry significant morbidity and mortality rates, including poor cognitive outcomes. This review discusses basic pathophysiology and management of status epilepticus, neuroimaging findings, the role of continuous electroencephalogram monitoring and nonconvulsive status epilepticusas well as recent developments in treatment options for refractory cases.

Tolerability, safety, and side effects of levetiracetam versus phenytoin in intravenous and total prophylactic regimen among craniotomy patients: a prospective randomized study

PURPOSE

Practical choice in parenteral antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) remains limited despite formulation of newer intravenous agents and requirements of special patient groups. This study aims to compare the tolerability, safety, and side effect profiles of levetiracetam (LEV) against the standard agent phenytoin (PHT) when given intravenously and in total regimen for seizure prophylaxis in a neurosurgical setting.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, single-center study with appropriate blinding comprised evaluation pertaining to intravenous use 3 days following craniotomy and at discharge, and to total intravenous-plus-oral AED regimen at 90 days. Primary tolerability end points were discontinuation because of side effect and first side effect. Safety combined end point was major side effect or seizure. Seizure occurrence and side effect profiles were compared as secondary outcomes.

KEY FINDINGS

Of 81 patients randomized, 74 (36 LEV, 38 PHT) received parenteral AEDs. No significant difference attributable to intravenous use was found between LEV and PHT in discontinuation because of side effect (LEV 1/36, PHT 2/38, p = 1.00) or number of patients with side effect (LEV 1/36, PHT 4/38, p = 0.36). No significant difference was found between LEV and PHT total intravenous-plus-oral regimen in discontinuation because of side effect (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-2.92, p = 0.72) or number of patients with side effect (HR 1.51, 95% CI 0.77-2.98, p = 0.22). More patients assigned PHT reached the undesirable clinical end point for safety of major side effect or seizure (HR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01-0.70, p = 0.002). Seizures occurred only in patients assigned PHT (n = 6, p = 0.01). Although not significant, trends were observed for major side effect in more patients assigned PHT (p = 0.08) and mild side effect in more assigned LEV (p = 0.09).

SIGNIFICANCE

Both LEV and PHT are well-tolerated perioperatively in parenteral preparation, and in total intravenous-plus-oral prophylactic regimen. Comparative safety and differing side effect profile of intravenous LEV supports use as an alternative to intravenous PHT.

Newer antiepileptic drugs in the treatment of status epilepticus: impact on prognosis

Newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are increasingly prescribed and seem to have a comparable efficacy as the classical AEDs; however, their impact on status epilepticus (SE) prognosis has received little attention. In our prospective SE database (2006-2010), we assessed the use of older versus newer AEDs (levetiracetam, pregabalin, topiramate, lacosamide) over time and its relationship to outcome (return to clinical baseline conditions, new handicap, or death). Newer AEDs were used more often toward the end of the study period (42% of episodes versus 30%). After adjustment for SE etiology, SE severity score, and number of compounds needed to terminate SE, newer AEDs were independently related to a reduced likelihood of return to baseline (p<0.001) but not to increased mortality. These findings seem in line with recent findings on refractory epilepsy. Also, in view of the higher price of the newer AEDs, well-designed, prospective assessments analyzing the impact of newer AEDs on efficacy and tolerability in patients with SE appear mandatory.

Anaesthesia and epilepsy

Epilepsy is the most common serious neurological disorder, with a prevalence of 0.5-1% of the population. While the traditional antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) still play a significant role in treatment of seizures, there has been an influx of newer agents over the last 20 yr, which are now in common usage. Anaesthetists are frequently faced with patients with epilepsy undergoing emergency or elective surgery and patients suffering seizures and status epilepticus in the intensive care unit (ICU). This review examines perioperative epilepsy management, the mode of action of AEDs and their interaction with anaesthetic agents, potential adverse effects of anaesthetic agents, and the acute management of seizures and refractory status epilepticus on the ICU. Relevant literature was identified by a Pubmed search of epilepsy and status epilepticus in conjunction with individual anaesthetic agents.

Treatment of status epilepticus in a large community hospital

BACKGROUND

Status epilepticus (SE) is a neurological emergency usually requiring immediate medical treatment. Due to the lack of adequate studies, treatment guidelines and their application vary between countries and institutions. We intended to analyze current treatment of SE in a German community hospital.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified patients from a large community hospital in northern Germany who had been diagnosed with SE between August 2008 and December 2010. Their charts were reviewed regarding sociodemographic variables, treatment and outcome.

RESULTS

We studied the first SE episode in 172 patients with a median age of 69 years (range 18-90 years). The etiology was acute symptomatic in 30 patients, progressive symptomatic in 22 patients and remote symptomatic in 120 patients. Presentation was generalized convulsive in 60 patients, non-convulsive in 72 patients and simple motor/aura in 40 patients. Median latency from onset to treatment start was 0.75 h (range 0.2-336 h). Initial treatment had a success rate (SR) of 40%. Second line treatment had a success rate of 54%. In patients whose seizures were refractory to the first two drugs, success rates were between 31% and 55%, with only a minority of the patients receiving established drugs such as phenytoin or barbiturates. Multivariate analysis revealed non-convulsive semiology as the only factor significantly associated with refractoriness. SE could be terminated in 95% of the patients and in-hospital mortality was 10%. Benzodiazepines and phenytoin had the most severe side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Status epilepticus can be terminated successfully and with low in-hospital mortality in the vast majority of the patients treated in a large community hospital. The success rate of each treatment step is between 30% and 55% regardless of the substances used.

What is the evidence to use new intravenous AEDs in status epilepticus?

Current standard treatment of established status epilepticus after failure of benzodiazepines is intravenous phenytoin/fosphenytoin, phenobarbital, or valproate. Since 2006 two new antiseizure drugs have become available as intravenous formulation: levetiracetam (2006) and lacosamide (2008). Both drugs have been taken up very rapidly by the clinicians to treat acute seizures and status epilepticus, despite lack of evidence from randomized controlled trials. The favorable pharmacokinetic profile and the good tolerability, especially the lack of sedating effects of both drugs make them promising potential alternatives to the standard antiseizure drugs. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to inform clinicians better about the best choice of treatment in established status epilepticus. The experimental evidence as well as the current clinical experience with levetiracetam and lacosamide are summarized in this review.

Utilization patterns of central nervous system drugs: A cross-sectional study among the critically ill patients

Introduction:

Critically ill patients often receive central nervous system drugs due to primary disorder or complications secondary to multiorgan failure. The aim of the study was to evaluate the current utilization pattern of central nervous system drugs among patients in the medical intensive care unit.

Materials and Methods:

A prospective observational study carried out over a period of 1 year. The relevant data on drug prescription of each patient was collected from the inpatient case record. Drugs were classified into different groups based on WHO–ATC classification. The demographic data, clinical data, and utilization of different classes of drugs as well as individual drugs were analyzed.

Results:

A total of 325 consecutive patients were included for the analysis; 211 (65%) patients were males; 146 patients (45%) were above 55 years of age. Encephalopathy [63(19.38%)] and stroke [62(19%)] were the common central nervous system diagnoses. In a total of 1237 drugs, 68% of the drugs were prescribed by trade name. Midazolam (N05CD08) 142 (43.69%), morphine (N02AA01) 201 (61.84%), and atracurium (M03AC04) 82 (25.23%) were the most commonly used sedative, analgesic, and neuromuscular blocker, respectively. Phenytoin (N03AB02) 151 (46.46%) had maximum representation among antiepileptic agents.

Conclusions:

Utilization of drugs from multiple central nervous system drug classes was noticed. Rational use of drugs can be encouraged by prescription by brand name.

Treatment strategies for refractory status epilepticus

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Status epilepticus is one of the most common emergencies in neurology, and every third patient does not respond to adequate first-line treatment. Refractory status epilepticus may be associated with increased morbidity and mortality, and new treatment options are urgently required. This review critically discusses recently published data regarding the role of 'new' antiepileptic drugs, the efficacy and safety of anesthetic agents, and the overall clinical outcome that is an integral part of treatment decisions.

RECENT FINDINGS

In complex partial status epilepticus, levetiracetam may be administered after failure of first-line and/or second-line agents. Lacosamide may be an interesting new adjunct, but reliable data are pending. In the treatment of refractory generalized convulsive status epilepticus, propofol seems to be as efficient as barbiturates. The latter are associated with prolonged ventilation times due to redistribution kinetics, whereas the former bears the risk of propofol infusion syndrome if administered continuously. Even after prolonged treatment with anesthetics over weeks, survival with satisfactory functional outcome is possible.

SUMMARY

Unambiguous recommendations regarding treatment strategies for refractory status epilepticus are limited by a lack of reliable data. Therefore, randomized controlled trials or at least prospective observational studies based on strict protocols incorporating long-term outcome data are urgently required.

Second-line status epilepticus treatment: comparison of phenytoin, valproate, and levetiracetam

PURPOSE

Phenytoin (PHT), valproic acid (VPA), or levetiracetam (LEV) are commonly used as second-line treatment of status epilepticus (SE), but comparative studies are not available.

METHODS

Among 279 adult SE episodes identified prospectively in our tertiary care hospital over 4 years, we retrospectively identified 187 episodes in which PHT, VPA, or LEV were given after benzodiazepines. Patients with postanoxic SE were not included. Demographics, clinical SE features, failure of second-line treatment to control SE, new handicap, and mortality at hospital discharge were assessed. Uni- and multivariable statistical analyses were applied to compare the three agents.

KEY FINDINGS

Each compound was used in about one third of SE episodes. VPA failed to control SE in 25.4%, PHT in 41.4%, and LEV in 48.3% of episodes in which these were prescribed. A deadly etiology was more frequent in the VPA group, whereas SE episodes tended to be more severe in the PHT group. After adjustment for these known SE outcome predictors, LEV failed more often than VPA [odds ratio (OR) 2.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19-6.08]; 16.8% (95% CI: 6.0-31.4%) of second-line treatment failures could be attributed to LEV. PHT was not statistically different from the other two compounds. Second-line treatment did not seem to influence new handicap and mortality, whereas etiology and the SE Severity Score (STESS) were robust independent predictors.

SIGNIFICANCE

Even without significant differences on outcome at discharge, LEV seems less efficient than VPA to control SE after benzodiazepines. A prospective comparative trial is needed to address this potentially concerning finding.

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.