Safety and Tolerability of Rapid Administration Undiluted Levetiracetam

Efficiency and safety of high-dose undiluted intravenous push levetiracetam loading doses compared to intravenous infusion in seizing patients: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Intravenous (IV) push (IVP) is an alternative administration method for levetiracetam, but evidence evaluating it compared to IV piggyback (IVPB) for loading doses in acutely seizing patients is limited, particularly in patients with status epilepticus (SE). This study aimed to compare the efficiency and safety of IVP versus IVPB levetiracetam loading doses.

METHODS

This was a single-center sequential retrospective study conducted in adult (≥18 years) patients who received an IV levetiracetam loading dose (>2000 mg or ≥20 mg/kg) for acute or suspected seizure. The primary outcome was time to administration, compared between doses given as IVP versus IVPB. Secondary outcomes included rates of adverse events (AEs), rescue benzodiazepine or antiseizure medication administration, intubation, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 246 patients were included; 116 received IVP and 130 received IVPB loading doses. Median age was 56 years; most patients were male (62%) and White (60%) and had witnessed seizures (67%). Doses were administered for SE in 32 (27.5%) and 46 (35.4%) patients in the IVP and IVPB arms, respectively. Median time to administration was shorter in the IVP group (12 vs. 38 min, p < .001). Bradycardia (1.7% vs. 2.3%, p = .99), hypotension (7.8% vs. 12%, p = .30), sedation (6% vs. 12.3%, p = .09), intubation (10% vs. 8%, p = .37), ICU admission (32% vs. 39%, p = .31), and rescue medication administration (8.6% vs. 14.6% p = .10) were similar between groups. In SE patients, IVP was associated with shorter time to administration (12 vs. 44 min, p = .003) and lower odds of ICU admission after adjustment for age, dose, Status Epilepticus Severity Score, and seizure history (adjusted odds ratio = .23, 95% confidence interval = .06-.81).

SIGNIFICANCE

IVP reduced time to levetiracetam administration versus IVPB and was not associated with more AEs. Rescue agent use, intubation, and ICU admission were similar between arms, but IVP may reduce ICU admissions in SE patients. Prospective studies should assess the effectiveness of IVP versus IVPB.

Safety and efficacy of levetiracetam and carbamazepine monotherapy in the management of pediatric focal epilepsy: a randomized clinical trial

Due to the limited number of studies in children with focal epilepsy and the importance of choosing the most suitable drug to control seizures in children, the administration of the most effective medication with the most negligible adverse events is vital. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and adverse events of carbamazepine vs. levetiracetam monotherapy in children with focal seizures. A monocentric, randomized, controlled, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial was designed. This study was approved by the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (registration number: IRCT20170216032603N2) on June 19, 2020, and conducted at the neurology department of Imam Ali Hospital, Karaj, Iran, from February 2020 to March 2021. This study assessed 120 patients with recently diagnosed focal seizures aged 2 to 14. Patients were randomly divided into two groups, who received carbamazepine (CBZ) 15 to 20 mg/kg and levetiracetam (LEV) 20 to 40 mg/kg daily, respectively. Patients were evaluated for improvement and complications at weeks 4, 12, and 24. Out of 120 patients included in the study, six patients were excluded due to various complications of CBZ. The mean number of seizures at the end of the fourth, twelfth, and twenty-fourth weeks were 1.09 ± 0.75, 0.62 ± 0.27, and 0.39 ± 0.12 in the carbamazepine group and 1.11 ± 0.63, 0.52 ± 0.21, and 0.37 ± 0.11 in the LEV group, respectively (P > 0.05). Similarly, the number of seizure-free patients was 34, 44, and 48 in the CBZ group compared to 41, 50, and 54 in the LEV group, respectively (P > 0.05). On the other hand, the frequency of somnolence, dermatologic complications, and agitation was considerably higher in the CBZ group (P < 0.05). Although both medicines were equally effective in seizure control, CBZ was associated with considerably more adverse events and less patient compliance. Physicians should be aware of this difference to prevent unwanted consequences.

Subcutaneous Bolus Infusions of Undiluted Levetiracetam for End-of-Life Patients: Two Cases

We present two cases, in which end-of-life patients were inadvertently treated with bolus infusions of undiluted subcutaneous levetiracetam. The patients were treated for three and four days respectively. In both cases, the course of treatment was uneventful. Especially, no seizures, nor local irritation was observed. Administration of undiluted subcutaneous levetiracetam as intermittent bolus infusions by hand holds alluring properties for end-of-life patients. Amongst others reducing patient discomfort, increasing freedom of movement, and accessibility to essential seizure prophylaxis by eliminating the need for a syringe driver, thereby helping accommodate many patients wish to die in their own home. However, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety, including the optimum dilution and administration time of the subcutaneous preparation remains to be determined in clinically controlled trials.

Evaluation of Safety Outcomes of Undiluted Levetiracetam Intravenous Push Compared to Intravenous Piggyback

Background: Breakthrough seizures and status epilepticus require urgent management. Administration of intravenous push (IVP) levetiracetam has been demonstrated to be safe as compared to intravenous piggyback (IVPB). This transition can potentially offer faster time to administration and reduced drug and material cost. The objective of this study was to observe safety of administration in patients receiving levetiracetam via IVP compared to IVPB in acute care settings. Methods: This is a multi-center, observational, retrospective cohort study of 1214 adult patients who received levetiracetam pre- and post-implementation of IVP over a 6 month timespan. Primary outcome was time from order verification to administration of urgent first-time doses. Secondary outcomes included time to administration of loading doses and cost. Safety outcome was infusion site related reactions. Results: Time from order verification to administration of urgent first-time doses pre- and post-implementation of IVP administration was reduced from 61 minutes to 47 minutes (P=0.0002). Infusion site related reactions were observed in 6 out of 5432 doses in the IVPB arm and in 5 out of 4700 doses in the IVP arm (P=1). Total estimated cost was $76,171.96 for the 5449 IVPB total doses and $11,484.33 for the 4721 IVP total doses. Conclusions: Transition from IVPB to IVP administration reduced time from order verification to administration of urgent first-time doses with both administrations having similar incidence of infusion site related reactions. Cost savings and improved workflow were observed. Levetiracetam administered via IVP may be considered as a safe alternative method of administration in the acute care setting.

Status Epilepticus: An Update on Pharmacological Management

Status epilepticus (SE) is a neurological emergency that requires timely pharmacological therapy to cease seizure activity. The treatment approach varies based on the time and the treatment stage of SE. Benzodiazepines are considered the first-line therapy during the emergent treatment phase of SE. Antiseizure medicines such as phenytoin, valproic acid, and levetiracetam are recommended during the urgent treatment phase. These drugs appear to have a similar safety and efficacy profile, and individualized therapy should be chosen based on patient characteristics. Midazolam, propofol, pentobarbital, and ketamine are continuous intravenous infusions of anesthetic medications utilized in the refractory SE (RSE) period. The most efficacious pharmacotherapeutic treatments for RSE and superrefractory status epilepticus are not clearly defined.

Determining the Safety and Tolerability of Rapid Administration of Undiluted Intravenous Levetiracetam in Pediatrics

Objective: Levetiracetam is widely used in the emergency setting. Safety and tolerability of undiluted levetiracetam is prevalent in adults but is limited in pediatrics. The purpose is to determine the safety and tolerability of rapid administration of undiluted levetiracetam in pediatric patients. Methods: A retrospective, single-center, observational study was conducted in pediatric patients who received undiluted levetiracetam intravenous push. The primary outcome was adverse reactions, extravasation, need for intravenous line replacement, and discontinuation due to adverse reactions. The secondary outcome was turnaround time between ordering and administering first doses. Results: One hundred fourteen patients were included. Injection site reactions occurred in 7 patients. Extravasation occurred in 4 patients. Two patients required intravenous line replacement. There were no adverse events leading to discontinuation of levetiracetam. No difference was seen in the time from order to administration. Conclusion: Rapid administration of undiluted levetiracetam in pediatric patients was safe and well tolerated.

An Emergency Department Quality Improvement Project for Intravenous Levetiracetam Administration

Background: Levetiracetam is a readily available, safe anticonvulsive medication. It is frequently administered as IV piggyback with a pump, carrier fluid, and tubing. The Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial demonstrated levetiracetam being similarly effective to previously used treatments in doses up to 4500 mg administered over 10 minutes. Objective: We sought to compare usage, cost, and waste of IV piggyback with IV push administration of levetiractam following implementation of an IV push protocol in an academic emergency department. Methods: A three-month review of levetiracetam administration was done following protocol implementation using IV push for initial treatment of benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus. The review quantified the number of IV push vs IV piggyback doses for all indications and evaluated cost of supplies necessary for administration. Results: During the study period, 137 patients received 142 doses of IV levetiracetam. Fifty-one doses (36%) were given as IV push rather than IV piggyback. The majority of doses 116 (82%) were 1000-2000 mg and 11 doses (8%) 3500-4500 mg. Estimated three-month savings with complete transition of IV piggyback to IV push would exceed $6000 just in our ED. The amount of sterile solution carrier fluid was also reduced and IV pump time freed. Conclusion: Implementation of an emergency department IV push levetiracetam protocol resulted in cost savings. Opportunities remain to improve clinical implementation practices. Medication administration represents one crucial target area where healthcare systems can implement policies to reduce waste and commit to climate-smart health care.

Rapid administration of undiluted loading doses of levetiracetam

OBJECTIVE

Rapid administration of antiseizure medications is a critical concept in the treatment of status epilepticus. Although undiluted levetiracetam (LEV) doses of up to 2500 mg have been evaluated, minimal data exist to support the safety of loading doses up to 4500 mg. This study will evaluate intravenous (IV) push administration of undiluted LEV from 2500 to 4500 mg for safety outcomes as well as tolerability.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, observational, cohort analysis of adult patients who received at least one loading dose of undiluted IV push LEV from October 15, 2019, to April 30, 2022, at a large academic medical center in Phoenix, Arizona. Relevant outcomes include the safety and tolerability of rapid administration of undiluted LEV at higher loading doses.

RESULTS

We evaluated 518 loading doses in 518 unique patients included during the study period. LEV was a new medication for witnessed or suspected seizures in 80.3% of patients, with 31.2% having a documented history of epilepsy or seizure disorder. At the time of LEV administration, 52.9% of patients were on a general medicine floor, 34.3% were in the intensive care unit, and 12.7% were in the emergency department. The median loading dose of LEV was 3600 mg (3000-4000 mg), with 4000 mg being the most common loading dose given. Peripheral IV lines were documented as the only available line in 78.6% of patients for loading dose administration. No adverse events associated with LEV administration were documented.

SIGNIFICANCE

Rapid IV administration of undiluted doses of LEV is both safe and tolerable in loading doses of 2500-4500 mg, allowing for rapid drug administration in the setting of status epilepticus.

Evaluation of the safety and tolerability of intravenous undiluted levetiracetam at a pediatric institution

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Recent studies suggest rapid administration of high-dose, undiluted levetiracetam is safe in adults; however, no information exists in pediatric patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of undiluted levetiracetam at a pediatric institution.

DESIGN

Retrospective, single-center, cohort study.

SETTING

Pediatric Academic Medical Center.

PATIENTS

All patients who received high-dose >60 mg/kg (-10%) up to 4500 mg undiluted or diluted intravenous levetiracetam were included.

INTERVENTION

Rapid intravenous administration of undiluted versus diluted levetiracetam.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 776 levetiracetam doses were included, 358 doses administered and 418 doses wasted. The doses administered (61 undiluted and 297 diluted) accounted for a total of 252 patients (39 received undiluted, and 213 received diluted levetiracetam) (median [minimum-maximum range] age, 2 years [1 day to 32.7 years]; mean (standard deviation [SD]) weight, 20.1 kg [22.1 kg]). The incidence of hemodynamic disturbances and infusion-related reactions was not statistically significant between undiluted (24.6%) and diluted (26.3%) groups (p = 0.87). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) time difference between first-line antiseizure medication and levetiracetam administration in patients with status epilepticus was 18 min (10.5-30.5) in the undiluted group versus 36.5 min (21.8-67.3) in the diluted group (p < 0.01). Additionally, there was a significant amount of drug waste from dispensed but not administered doses of the diluted bag compared to undiluted vials (57.6% diluted vs. 18.7% undiluted, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Undiluted levetiracetam was not associated with an increased incidence of adverse effects compared to diluted levetiracetam in high-doses, up to 4500 mg given over 5 min in pediatric patients.

Research Status, Synthesis and Clinical Application of Antiepileptic Drugs

According to the 2017 ILAE's official definition, epilepsy is a slow brain disease state characterized by recurrent episodes. Due to information released by ILAE in 2017, it can be divided into four types, including focal epilepsy, generalized epilepsy, combined generalized, and focal epilepsy, and unknown epilepsy. Since 1989, 24 new antiepileptic drugs have been approved to treat different types of epilepsy. Besides, there are a variety of antiepileptic medications under clinical monitoring. These novel antiepileptic drugs have plenty of advantages. Over the past 33 years, there have been many antiepileptic drugs on the mearket, but no one has been found that can completely cure epilepsy. In this paper, the mentioned drugs were classified according to their targets, and the essential information, and clinical studies of each drug were described. The structure-activity relationship of different chemical structures was summarized. This paper provides help for the follow-up research on epilepsy drugs.

Adverse events of undiluted intravenous push levetiracetam

BACKGROUND

In patients who experience a seizure, the seizure duration is a strong indicator of prognosis. Thus, reducing time to antiepileptic medications in patients who are actively seizing is critical. While findings from retrospective studies suggest that the rapid administration of undiluted intravenous (IV) levetiracetam may be safe, some gaps in the literature remain.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this research study was to prospectively assess adverse events associated with the rapid administration of undiluted IV levetiracetam.

METHODS

This was a prospective, observational cohort study of adult patients who received rapid administration of undiluted IV levetiracetam at doses up to 4500 mg in the emergency department (ED) of a large community, teaching hospital. The primary endpoint was the incidence of any pre-defined adverse event. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of each type of adverse event, the incidence of seizure termination, and the time to completion of drug administration in patients actively seizing at the time of study inclusion.

RESULTS

A total of 321 doses of IV push levetiracetam were ordered for 318 patients and 250 patients were subsequently included. Fourteen (5.6%) patients experienced an adverse event, most commonly due to injection site reactions (9/14). Clinically relevant hypotension, tachycardia, and hypertension occurred in five patients. For actively seizing patients, 79% (15/19) achieved seizure termination and the median time from medication order to completion of therapy was 12 min.

CONCLUSION

This study found that the rapid administration of undiluted IV levetiracetam in ED patients was associated with few adverse events.

Safety and Tolerability of Intravenous Push Lacosamide and Levetiracetam

Background: Lacosamide and levetiracetam are antiseizure medications (ASMs) commonly utilized in the treatment and prevention of seizures. Historically, these agents have been administered as slow IV infusions after further dilution. Recent literature suggests that rapid administration via undiluted IV push may be safe and may increase efficiency of administration. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of undiluted IV push lacosamide and levetiracetam over 5 min. Methods: This study was conducted as a single-centered, retrospective, observational cohort that analyzed the rapid administration of undiluted lacosamide and levetiracetam. Adult patients admitted from September 1st, 2019, to May 31st, 2020, receiving at least one administration of IV push lacosamide at any dose or levetiracetam at doses ≤ 1500 mg were evaluated. The primary safety outcomes were the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia. Results: A total of 86 subjects were evaluated; 36 patients were administered lacosamide, and 50 patients were administered levetiracetam. Hypotension or bradycardia occurred in 6 patients in the lacosamide group (16.6%) and 6 patients in the levetiracetam group (12.0%). There were no reported infusion site reactions. Among the subjects who received lacosamide and had a 12-lead electrocardiogram (EKG), there were no reported incidences of a prolonged PR interval. Conclusions: In this safety-analysis cohort, undiluted lacosamide and levetiracetam were not associated with significant adverse events when administered via IV push over 5 min. This seems to be a safe alternative method of administration to intermittent infusion. A larger, prospective cohort is needed to confirm these findings.

Indications for the use of intravenous second-line antiseizure medications in an emergency room setting

BACKGROUND

Second-line iv antiseizure medications (ASMs) are used to treat status epilepticus (SE), but in the emergency room setting, there might be other intended and unintended indications for administration. We wanted to explore these different indications and assess the actual usage of first- and second-line ASMs for SE with reference to other uses, such as for SE mimics.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we searched the electronic patient registry with the following terms: "epilepsy", "SE", and "seizure", during 2015. Patients at least 16 years old and treated with iv second-line ASMs were further analysed. We reassessed the indications for the use of iv ASMs based on clinical features and examinations performed.

RESULTS

A total of 166 episodes from 136 patients with a median age of 66 years were evaluated, constituting the following indication categories: ongoing SE (48.2%), recurrent seizures (19.3%), postictal (12.1%), seizure mimics (10.2%) and prophylactic use of ASMs (10.2%). Ongoing SE included the following subgroups: convulsive SE, focal aware SE, nonconvulsive SE (NCSE) and NCSE with coma. The seizure mimics group had a preexisting epilepsy diagnosis more often than the ongoing SE group (73% vs. 44%, p = 0.039). Ischaemic stroke was the most frequent seizure mimic. EEG was performed during hospital admission in 78% of patients with ongoing SE, 50% of patients with recurrent seizures, 75% of patients with postictal state, 53% of seizure mimic episodes and 12% of the prophylactic group. In NCSE and comatose NCSE, the diagnosis was made, and treatment was initiated only after an EEG in 52% and 30% of cases, respectively. The use of newer second-line ASMs (levetiracetam and lacosamide) was frequent in our study population. Immediate side effects of ASMs were infrequent.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though most of the use of ASMs was justified and administered for SE, it is a diagnostic challenge where a prior diagnosis of epilepsy can be a misleading factor, and EEG is an essential tool when clinical features are often overlapping with other acute seizure disorders. Side effects of the newer second-line ASMs after a single dose are infrequent.

Safety Profile of High-Dose Intravenous Push Lacosamide

Lacosamide (LCM) is an antiseizure medication used to manage status epilepticus (SE). Previous retrospective analyses have demonstrated safety and efficiency in intravenous push (IVP) administration at 80 mg per minute. Quick administration can be achieved in a high-acuity setting without the additional time required for compounding. However, previous literature only partially represents high doses of IVP LCM, which limits the understanding of the safety profile of these doses. Our study was a single-center, retrospective, single-arm analysis of patients who received IVP LCM 300 mg or 400 mg during admission. The primary outcome was the incidence of infusion site reactions, hypotension, and bradycardia within 2 hours of IVP administration. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of PR prolongation. A total of 113 patients were evaluated for infusion site reactions. Of these, 108 patients had vital signs assessed within 2 hours of IVP LCM and could be evaluated for hypotension and bradycardia. The sample primarily consisted of LCM 400 mg IVP (85.8%). The primary outcome consisted of 7 (6.2%) infusion reactions, 12 (11.1%) hypotensive events, and no reports of bradycardia. Each adverse event was assessed using the Naranjo Adverse Drug Probability Scale. All events scored less than two, suggesting the possibility was likely related to factors other than the medication. In conclusion, LCM 300 mg and 400 mg IVP administration have the potential to facilitate more rapid treatment of seizures without additional risk of infusion site reactions, hypotension, and bradycardia.

The safety of rapid infusion levetiracetam: A systematic review

Epilepsy is a common diagnosis and can quickly progress to status epilepticus which requires rapid treatment. Levetiracetam is a frequent treatment choice in these situations. The approved administration of intravenous levetiracetam is an infusion over 15 min. In recent years, studies have been published on faster infusion rates of levetiracetam. The objective of this review is to discuss the safety of levetiracetam as an intravenous push at a rate quicker than recommended. A literature search using PubMed, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar resulted in 192 articles. Inclusion criteria consisted of English language, human studies, use of levetiracetam administered intravenously at a rate faster than 15 min, discussion of safety, and full-text availability. After screening, nine articles remained for inclusion. Of the nine articles, one was a prospective, open-label study, six were retrospective studies, and two were open-label, randomized controlled trials. The most common rapid infusion speed was 5 min and doses ranged from 280 to 4500 mg. Some of these trials used undiluted levetiracetam and many reported that peripheral access was used for a portion or all of the administrations. There were few adverse effects, including specific adverse effects relating to medication concentration and speed of infusion, in all the studies. Administration of intravenous levetiracetam at a rate faster than recommended in the labeling information appears to be safe and tolerable and can be given via a peripheral line. Rapid infusion of levetiracetam is a beneficial method of administration in an acute care setting where patients need rapid attainment of therapeutic levels of antiepileptic medications. Additional research is needed to ensure that rapid administration of intravenous levetiracetam is as efficacious as the traditional dosing method.

Levetiracetam Mechanisms of Action: From Molecules to Systems

Epilepsy is a chronic disease that affects millions of people worldwide. Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are used to control seizures. Even though parts of their mechanisms of action are known, there are still components that need to be studied. Therefore, the search for novel drugs, new molecular targets, and a better understanding of the mechanisms of action of existing drugs is still crucial. Levetiracetam (LEV) is an AED that has been shown to be effective in seizure control and is well-tolerable, with a novel mechanism of action through an interaction with the synaptic vesicle protein 2A (SV2A). Moreover, LEV has other molecular targets that involve calcium homeostasis, the GABAergic system, and AMPA receptors among others, that might be integrated into a single mechanism of action that could explain the antiepileptogenic, anti-inflammatory, neuroprotective, and antioxidant properties of LEV. This puts it as a possible multitarget drug with clinical applications other than for epilepsy. According to the above, the objective of this work was to carry out a comprehensive and integrative review of LEV in relation to its clinical uses, structural properties, therapeutical targets, and different molecular, genetic, and systemic action mechanisms in order to consider LEV as a candidate for drug repurposing.

Clinical Considerations for Rapid Administration of Undiluted or Minimally Diluted Levetiracetam Bolus Doses

INTRODUCTION

The ability to administer medications via rapid intravenous bolus has the potential to allow for the rapid attainment of therapeutic drug levels and to limit the amount of unnecessary fluid volumes infused. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of undiluted or minimally diluted levetiracetam bolus doses.

AREAS COVERED

A total of six pieces of literature were evaluated in this review. Doses up to 4,500 mg of intravenous levetiracetam were found to be both efficacious and safe when administered undiluted or minimally diluted in either a peripheral or central line. Product concentrations of levetiracetam ranged from 50 mg/mL to 100 mg/mL, with volumes ranging from 10-30 mL's. Maintenance doses of up to 1,500 mg twice daily were demonstrated to be both efficacious and safe when administered undiluted or minimally diluted. Injection site pain and agitation were the most commonly reported adverse drug effects.

EXPERT OPINION

Though hospitals and clinicians must be judicious with regard to training and the safety concerns of bolus intravenous push doses, and will need to address numerous logistical concerns, this practice is supported in practice guidelines and should be readily employed.

Evaluation of the Safety of Rapid Administration of Undiluted High-Dose Intravenous Levetiracetam

Background

Intravenous (IV) levetiracetam (LEV) is an antiseizure medication traditionally given as an intermittent infusion to mitigate potential adverse effects given its acidic formulation. The process of compounding may lead to delays in treating status epilepticus, which is why administration of undiluted doses is of interest. Prior studies have shown safety of IV doses from 1000 mg to 4500 mg; however, assessments of adverse side effects outside IV site reactions have not been studied.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was completed with patients who received 1500 mg doses of undiluted IV LEV. We included patients ≥ 18 years old that received at least 1 dose of IV LEV 1500 mg from January 2018 to February 2021. Study end points included assessment of hemodynamic disturbance (bradycardia [HR less than 50 beats per minute] or hypotension [SBP less than 90 mmHg] within 1 hour or documented infusion reaction within 12 hours of LEV. Descriptive statistics were utilized.

Results

A total 213 doses of 1500 mg of IV LEV were administered to 107 patients. Peripheral lines were used for 85.9% of doses. Approximately half of doses (57) were administered to patients on the general wards, with the remainder in the intensive care unit or emergency department. Two patients (1.9%) experienced bradycardia; however, 1 patient had pre-existing bradycardia. Three patients (3.8%) experienced hypotension; however, those patients were receiving vasopressors prior to the dose. There were no cases of infusion reaction.

Conclusion

Undiluted, rapid administration of IV LEV 1500 mg was well tolerated and safe.

Safety of Intravenous Push Levetiracetam Compared to Intravenous Piggyback at a Tertiary Academic Medical Center: A Retrospective Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Medication administration via intravenous push presents multiple potential advantages; however, there may be an increased risk of adverse drug reactions. In 2020, Brigham and Women's Hospital changed levetiracetam intravenous administration to intravenous push (IVP).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this analysis was to compare the safety profile of IVP to intravenous piggyback (IVPB) levetiracetam administration.

METHODS

This institutional review board-approved, single-center, pre-post analysis was performed between 1 November, 2019 and 30 May, 2020. The electronic health record was used to identify all administrations of intravenous levetiracetam greater than 1000 mg in patients ≥ 18 years old. The major safety outcomes included hypotension, bradycardia, drug-induced sedation, and intravenous site reactions such as phlebitis and infiltration. The major efficiency outcome was the time from pharmacy order verification to first-dose administration.

RESULTS

A total of 498 administrations in 162 patients were included in the analysis: 252 administrations in 84 patients in the IVP group and 246 administrations in 78 patients in the IVPB group. The incidence of bradycardia was 7 vs 3 (3.2% vs 1.5%, p = 0.34); hypotension 10 vs 6 (5.2% vs 3.5%, p = 0.44); sedation 21 vs 36 (19.3% vs 27.9%, p = 0.12); and peripheral IV site reactions 0 vs 1 (0% vs 0.6%, p = 0.39) in the IVP vs IVPB groups, respectively. The median time between order verification and first-dose administration was significantly reduced in the IVP vs IVPB group (23.5 vs 55 min, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous push levetiracetam administration of doses up to 4000 mg was associated with a similar incidence of cardiovascular, sedation, and infusion site-related adverse events compared to IVPB and resulted in a significant reduction in time to first-dose administration. Intravenous push levetiracetam in doses as high as 4000 mg may be considered safe with appropriate monitoring.

Rapid administration of undiluted intravenous levetiracetam

OBJECTIVE

Operational delays have the potential to lead to suboptimal time to seizure control during status epilepticus. Levetiracetam (LEV) is an urgent control antiepileptic medication that offers relative lack of adverse effects and ease of monitoring. There are limited data published demonstrating safety and tolerability of undiluted rapid intravenous (IV) push of LEV in doses of 1000 mg or less. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of IV push administration of LEV doses up to 4500 mg.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, observational, cohort analysis of adult patients who received at least one dose of undiluted IV push LEV from October 15, 2019 to August 31, 2020 at a large academic medical center in Phoenix, Arizona. Outcomes of interest include safety and tolerability of rapid administration of undiluted LEV.

RESULTS

There were 953 unique patients included during the study period. LEV was a new medication for witnessed or suspected seizure in 51.9% of patients, and 40.7% of patients had a documented history of epilepsy or seizure disorder. There were 8561 undiluted IV push LEV doses administered, 3674 (42.9%) of which were greater than 1000 mg. LEV was administered most often through a peripheral IV (79.1%). There were 12 patients with documented adverse drug events during the study period, with four potentially directly related to IV push LEV administration. These events were limited to local injection site reactions and included redness, burning, and loss of a peripheral IV line.

SIGNIFICANCE

Rapid IV administration of undiluted LEV is both safe and tolerable in doses of up to 4500 mg, allowing for rapid drug administration, which is paramount during neurologic emergencies.

Evaluation of Time to Administration, Benzodiazepine Use, and Safety of Intravenous Push Levetiracetam in a Neuro-Spine Intensive Care Unit

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the time to medication administration, clinical effect, and safety of a recent Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee-approved change in the administration of levetiracetam from intravenous piggyback (IVPB) over 15 min to undiluted intravenous push (IVP) over 2-5 min at a large academic medical center.

METHODS

The primary outcome was the time from order verification to the administration of IVP levetiracetam versus IVPB levetiracetam. The secondary outcome was any benzodiazepine administered in the time between levetiracetam order verification and administration in both groups. Adult patients admitted to the neuro-spine intensive care unit in the 6 months prior to and after the policy change, and who received at least one dose of 1000 mg or higher of IVP or IVPB levetiracetam for active seizures, were included in this retrospective, observational, institutional review board-approved study. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, χ², and the Mann-Whitney U-test as appropriate.

RESULTS

Of the 2055 hospital-wide levetiracetam doses ordered within the study period, 316 doses were screened for enrollment and 160 were enrolled with 60 and 100 patients assigned to the IVP and IVPB groups, respectively. There were no differences between the groups at baseline. The majority of the population was male, 57 years old, had no significant renal dysfunction (defined as a creatinine clearance of less than 60 ml/min), and had a seizure etiology of malignancy or traumatic brain injury. A significant reduction in the time to administration of levetiracetam was found with IVP compared with IVPB administration (28 vs. 80 min, p < 0.0001). A subsequent reduction in patients who received benzodiazepines in the interim of levetiracetam order verification and administration was also associated with IVP compared with IVPB (2% vs. 13%, p = 0.042). There were no differences found in the rates of adverse effects between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of levetiracetam doses up to 2000 mg via IVP is a safe method of administration that results in a reduction of time to medication administration and a reduction of benzodiazepine use.

Principles of Pharmacotherapy of Seizures and Status Epilepticus

Status epilepticus is a neurological emergency with an outcome that is highly associated with the initial pharmacotherapy management that must be administered in a timely fashion. Beyond first-line therapy of status epilepticus, treatment is not guided by robust evidence. Optimal pharmacotherapy selection for individual patients is essential in the management of seizures and status epilepticus with careful evaluation of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors. With the addition of newer antiseizure agents to the market, understanding their role in the management of status epilepticus is critical. Etiology-guided therapy should be considered in certain patients with drug-induced seizures, alcohol withdrawal, or autoimmune encephalitis. Some patient populations warrant special consideration, such as pediatric, pregnant, elderly, and the critically ill. Seizure prophylaxis is indicated in select patients with acute neurological injury and should be limited to the acute postinjury period.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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