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

Advances in pharmacotherapy for sickle cell disease: what is the current state of play?

INTRODUCTION

Despite over 100 years of neglect and insufficient funding, sickle cell disease has risen to the top of the discussions due to the recent approval of two new genetic therapies. Prior to these approvals, there were only four prior approved medications for sickle cell disease in spite of being the most common inherited blood disorder. The advent and expense of these new genetic therapies have finally brought the trials and tribulations associated with SCD including the suffering and early mortality of affected individuals to the much-needed limelight. Presently, questions about how these therapies will be used and what that means for ongoing pharmaceutical development remain.

AREAS COVERED

Here, we wish to highlight the current medications and treatments for SCD using already published literature as well as scrutinize the tedious process of implementation for these newly approved commercial genetic therapies.

EXPERT OPINION

In our expert opinion, despite the progress we have made, significant challenges remain and the most important requirement for any of these treatments is ensuring all affected individuals have access to a sickle cell specialist who can provide comprehensive care.

Treosulfan is a safe and effective alternative to busulfan for conditioning in adult allogeneic HSCT patients: Data from a single center

INTRODUCTION

Type of conditioning regimen impacts the outcome of patients who undergo allogeneic HSCT since graft versus host disease (GVHD), infections, regimen related toxicities (RRT) are important causes of post-transplant mortality. Despite the RRT profile of busulfan, it is frequently used worldwide. Treosulfan has advantages in terms of dose of administration, lower incidence of sinusoidal obstruction syndrome and lower neurotoxicity. We retrospectively investigated outcomes of patients who underwent allogeneic HSCT with treosulfan or busulfan based conditioning regimens in our institution.

METHODS

Treosulfan was administered to 94 patients while 85 patients received busulfan. Our outcomes were RRT, chronic and acute GVHD, relapse related mortality (RRM), non-relapse mortality, and fungal infection. The clinical follow up data, regarding the primary and secondary endpoints of our study, of the patients who received treosulfan or busulfan based conditioning regimens were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 14 months for the treosulfan group while it was 11 months for the busulfan group (p = 0.16). RRT was 11.7% and 7.1% for treosulfan and busulfan respectively. The incidence of extensive chronic GVHD was less frequent in the treosulfan group compared to the busulfan group (15.7% vs. 32.1%) (p < 0.001). The incidence of acute GVHD (Grade 3 or higher) was 32.2% in the treosulfan group while it was 31.6% in the busulfan group. The RRM was 17% in the treosulfan group while it was 34% in the busulfan group. The non-relapse mortality was 35.5% and 29.4% in the treosulfan group and in the busulfan group respectively (p = 0.962).

CONCLUSION

Treosulfan, with a lower RRM, lower chronic GVHD incidence and with a similar RRT profile appears to be a safe alternative to busulfan.

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.

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.

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.

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.