Levetiracetam Monotherapy in Children with Epilepsy: A Systematic Review

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.

Development and Validation of Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Model of Levetiracetam to Predict Exposure and Dose Optimization in Pediatrics

Levetiracetam (Lev) is an antiepileptic drug that has been increasingly used in the epilepsy pediatric population in recent years, but its pharmacokinetic behavior in pediatric population needs to be characterized clearly. Clinical trials for the pediatric drug remain difficult to conduct due to ethical and practical factors. The purpose of this study was to use the physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model to predict changes in plasma exposure of Lev in pediatric patients and to provide recommendations for dose adjustment. A PBPK model of Lev in adults was developed using PK-Sim® software and extrapolated to the entire age range of the pediatric population. The model was evaluated using clinical pharmacokinetic data. The results showed the good fit between predictions and observations of the adult and pediatric models. The recommended doses for neonates, infants and children are 0.78, 1.67 and 1.22 times that of adults, respectively. Moreover, at the same dose, plasma exposure in adolescents was similar to that of adults. The PBPK models of Lev for adults and pediatrics were successfully developed and validated to provide a reference for the rational administration of drugs in the pediatric population.

Regulation of Inflammation-Related Genes through Fosl1 Suppression in a Levetiracetam-Treated Pilocarpine-Induced Status Epilepticus Mouse Model

Levetiracetam (LEV) suppresses the upregulation of proinflammatory molecules that occurs during epileptogenesis after status epilepticus (SE). Based on previous studies, LEV likely helps prevent the onset of epilepsy after insults to the brain, unlike other conventional anti-epileptic drugs. Recently, we discovered that the increase in Fosl1 expression that occurs after lipopolysaccharide (LPS) stimulation is suppressed by LEV and that Fosl1 inhibition suppresses inflammation in BV-2 microglial cells. These data indicate that Fosl1 is an important target of LEV and a key factor in preventing epilepsy onset. In this study, we examined the effects of LEV on Fosl1 expression and neuroinflammation in vivo. During epileptogenesis, the post-SE upregulation of hippocampal levels of Fosl1 and many inflammatory factors were suppressed by LEV. Fosl1 expression showed a characteristic pattern different from that of the expression of Fos, an immediate-early gene belonging to the same Fos family. At 2 days after SE, Fosl1 was predominantly expressed in astrocytes but was rarely detected in microglia, whereas Fos expression was distributed in various brain cell types. The expression of A2 astrocyte markers was similar to that of Fosl1 and was significantly suppressed by LEV. These results suggest that LEV may regulate astrocyte reactivity through regulation of Fosl1.

Comparative Efficacy of Levetiracetam for Epilepsy in School-Aged Children with Intellectual Disability and Normal Intelligence

Choosing optimal anti-seizure medication (ASM) is very important in pediatric patients with epilepsy who attend school, especially children with an intellectual disability (ID). Levetiracetam (LEV) has proven to be an effective, safe, generally well-tolerated, broad-spectrum ASM in children. In the context of increasing use of LEV in school-aged children with epilepsy and ID, we evaluate relevant clinical data, including efficacy, safety, and tolerability in children with epilepsy and an intellectual disability (ID) or normal intelligence (NI). We performed a retrospective chart review of children and included 298 pediatric patients with epilepsy who were treated with LEV with NI (147) and ID (151). After 6 months, 96% of NI and 83% of ID subjects had a seizure reduction rate greater than 50% (p = 0.031). The tolerability of LEV was generally good, with 75% retention rates at 2 years in both groups and only minor side effects (under 15%). The retention rates of patients with NI and ID were 76% and 74%, respectively (p = 0.597). Thus, LEV showed considerable efficacy with minimal side effects and high retention rates and is an easily maintained and safe treatment option for pediatric epilepsy with ID. However, better-designed research studies are needed to clearly elucidate the efficacy and safety of LEV in children with epilepsy and ID.

Response to antiseizure medications in epileptic patients with malformation of cortical development

Background

Malformation of cortical development (MCD) is one of the most common causes of pharmacoresistant epilepsy. Improving the knowledge of antiseizure medications (ASMs) treatment response in epileptic patients with MCD is crucial for optimal treatment options, either pharmacological therapy or non-pharmacological intervention.

Aim

To investigate the patterns of medical treatment outcome and the predictors for seizure freedom (SF) with ASM regimens in epilepsy caused by MCD.

Methods

The epileptic patients with MCD were consecutively enrolled from March 2013 to June 2019. SF was defined as no seizures for at least 12 months or three times the longest pretreatment inter-seizure interval, whichever was longer. Outcomes were classified into three patterns: pattern A: patients achieved SF at one point and remained so throughout follow-up; pattern B: patients' seizures fluctuated between periods of SF and relapse; pattern C: SF never attained. The terminal SF was defined if the patients remained SF at the last follow-up visit.

Results

A total of 164 epileptic patients with MCD were included. Pattern A was observed in 22, pattern B in 42, and pattern C in 100 patients. SF was ever achieved in 64 (pattern A and B) patients. Twenty-nine patients had terminal SF after a median follow-up time of 4.3 years. With continuing ASM treatment, seizure relapse risk was very low after a 5-year seizure-free period. The pretreatment seizure frequency was the only independent predictor for pattern A and seizure relapse. Sodium channel blockers monotherapy (33.8%) was more effective than levetiracetam (4.5%) in rendering SF in the initial ASM regimen.

Conclusion

Medical treatment can be successful in a minority of epileptic patients with MCD, and pretreatment seizure frequency helps to predict the treatment outcome. An unequal efficacy of ASMs in epilepsy caused by MCD suggests etiological evaluation is vital in the management of focal epilepsy.

Treating Status Epilepticus: Phenytoin Versus Levetiracetam

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

Initial levetiracetam versus valproate monotherapy in antiseizure medicine (ASM)-naïve pediatric patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy with tonic-clonic seizures

INTRODUCTION

Levetiracetam (LEV) is a second-generation antiseizure medicine (ASM) with broad-spectrum efficacy and tolerability. Few studies have compared the efficacy of valproate (VPA) and LEV as monotherapy in the pediatric population. Herein, we compare the efficacy, tolerability and safety of LEV monotherapy with those of VPA monotherapy in ASM-naïve pediatric patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy with tonic-clonic (GTC) seizures.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical and electroencephalographic (EEG) data of these ASM-naïve pediatric patients who were treated with either oral VPA or oral LEV as monotherapy for over 2 years at our center.

RESULTS

This study included 60 patients with a seizure onset age between 2 months and 12 years. The patients on VPA (29 patients) and LEV monotherapy (31 patients) showed similar favorable 6-month treatment outcomes (complete seizure control in 79.31% vs 80.64%, p = 0.468052). Age at epilepsy onset, epilepsy syndrome, EEG features and ASM dose were not significant predictors of the 6-month treatment outcomes in either group. Lower seizure frequency at presentation was a predictor of favorable 6-month treatment outcomes in the LEV group but not in the VPA group. VPA and LEV treatment showed similar favorable 6-month treatment outcomes in the febrile seizures plus and patients with unidentified epilepsy syndrome subgroups. None of the patients discontinued VPA or LEV due to treatment-associated adverse effects.

DISCUSSION

Our study showed that compared to VPA monotherapy, LEV monotherapy in ASM-naïve infants and children with idiopathic generalized epilepsy with GTC seizures has a similarly favorable efficacy and tolerability, independent of age, EEG features and epilepsy syndrome.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparison of the Therapeutic Effects of Sodium Valproate and Levetiracetam on Pediatric Epilepsy and the Effects of Nerve Growth Factor and γ-Aminobutyric Acid

Background:

We aimed to investigate the therapeutic effect of sodium valproate combined with levetiracetam on pediatric epilepsy and the effects of nerve growth factor and γ-aminobutyric acid.

Methods:

Eighty-three epileptic children admitted to Xuzhou Municipal Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University (Xuzhou, China) from Jan 2018 to Nov 2019 were collected and divided into a control group (40 cases, treated with sodium valproate alone) and an observation group (43 cases, treated with sodium valproate combined with levetiracetam). The therapeutic effect and incidence of adverse reactions were observed. The levels of nerve growth factor (NGF), γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and serum neuron-specific enolase (NSE) of children were compared. Changes of cognitive function and the total effective rate were evaluated. Logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the risk factors affecting the therapeutic effect.

Results:

After treatment, NGF, GABA and NSE in the observation group were significantly improved compared with those before treatment. The cognitive function of the observation group was significantly improved after treatment when compared with the control group. The total effective rate in the observation group was higher than that in the control group. Adverse reactions in the observation group were less than those in the control group. Seizure type, NGF, GABA, NSE and treatment methods were independent risk factors affecting the therapeutic effect of pediatric epilepsy.

Conclusion:

The application of sodium valproate combined with levetiracetam in the treatment of pediatric epilepsy is helpful to improve the overall therapeutic effect, significantly improve the cognitive function of children, and improve the levels of NGF, GABA and NSE.

Levetiracetam monotherapy in children with epilepsy: Experience from a tertiary pediatric neurology center

OBJECTIVES

Levetiracetam (LEV) is a second-generation antiepileptic drug with high efficacy and tolerability in children and adults with epilepsy. We aimed to retrospectively assess the long-term efficacy, tolerability, and safety of LEV monotherapy in children with epilepsy.

METHODS

All patients who received LEV monotherapy at the Ankara University Children Hospital between January 2010 and June 2020 were evaluated. This retrospective pediatric cohort study determined the efficacy and safety of LEV monotherapy in 281 outpatients with epilepsy.

RESULTS

There were 281 patients, 50.5% female, aged 5 months to 18 years with a mean age of 9 years. Of these, 48% of patients had idiopathic epilepsy, 40.6% had symptomatic epilepsy, and 11,4% had cryptogenic/genetic epilepsy. Primary generalized seizures occurred in 61.6% of patients, focal seizures in 19.6%, both generalized and focal seizures in 15,3%, focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures in 2.5%, and undefined type of seizure in 1.1%. A total of 22.8% patients had an accompanying extra neurological disease, mostly cardiological and hematological. The range of final daily dose was 10-71 mg/kg/day, with mean 29.5 mg/kg/day. Duration of therapy ranged from 7 days to 96 months, with median 12 months (IQR: 6-22). For the all cohort, a 6th month retention rate was 81%, a 12th month retention rate was 71.4%, and a 24th month retention rate was 61.8%. Eighty five percent of the patients had a seizure reduction of at least 50% and 55.9% of patients remained seizure-free for median 12 months treatment duration with LEV monotherapy. Improvement of electroencephalography (EEG) findings was found in 42% of patients on control EEGs. A total of 67 adverse events were documented in 45 (16%) patients. The most common adverse events were behavioral problems such as aggression (n:18) and irritability (n:17). The discontinuation rate due to adverse events was 2.5%, and due to inefficacy was 5.3%.

CONCLUSION

The present study suggests that the high retention rates, high percentage of seizure reduction, the low discontinuation rate due to adverse events and inefficacy, and the relatively benign and transient profile of adverse events make LEV preferable as monotherapy in the pediatric population.

Levetiracetam (levebel) Versus Carbamazepine Monotherapy for Focal Epilepsy in Children: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed at comparing the effect of a newly approved drug leveitiracetam (LEV) versus carbamazepine (CBZ) in the treatment of childhood focal epilepsy.

METHODS & MATERIALS

The study population included newly diagnosed children with focal epilepsy (1-16 years old) referring to the Pediatric Neurology Ward of Quaem Hospital, Mashhad, Iran from May 2013 to March 2014. The subjects were randomly treated with LEV or CBZ. Patients were followed for seizure control and drug side effects throughout six months. We assessed liver function and complete blood count for all patients through one month and they were asked about significant side effects, such as drowsiness، restlessness, and skin reaction. Eventually, they were assigned in two groups (n=25) receiving LEV and CBZ.

RESULTS

In our study, two cases in the LEV group were excluded because of severe agitation. Relapsing seizures were observed in 3 (13%) and 10 (40%) patients in LEV and CBZ groups, respectively. The seizure was not repeated in 15 cases (60%) in the CBZ group and 20 cases (87%) in the LEV group. The results of the Chi-squared test showed significant differences in the responses to treatment between the groups (P=0.03). Agitation was the most prevalent complication in the LEV group, whereas drowsiness was more common in the CBZ group. Fortunately, liver enzyme dysfunction and blood cell disturbances were not observed in the subjects.

CONCLUSION

According to the findings, there were significant differences in controlling seizures between two groups that indicated the effectiveness of LEV (87%) in the suppression of focal seizure.

Efficacy of levetiracetam combined with sodium valproate on pediatric epilepsy and its effect on serum miR-106b in children

Efficacy of levetiracetam (LEV) combined with sodium valproate (SV) on pediatric epilepsy and its effect on serum miR-106b in children were investigated. One hundred and twenty children with epilepsy in Xuzhou Children's Hospital from July 2015 to July 2017 were enrolled, and divided into control group (n=60) and observation group (n=60) according to random sampling. Additionally, 100 children undergoing normal physical examination were collected as normal group. Patients in the control group were treated with SV, and patients in the observation group were treated with SV and LEV. RT-qPCR was used for detecting the relative expression of serum miR-106b in children. The clinical efficacy was evaluated. After treatment, the relative expression of serum miR-106b in the control group was significantly higher than that in the observation group (P<0.05). The difference in the control group was smaller than that in the observation group (P<0.05). According to the ROC curve analysis, when the cut-off value was 1.442, the sensitivity, specificity and area under curve (AUC) of miR-106b in the diagnosis of pediatric epilepsy were 94.00, 64.17 and 0.833 respectively. The clinical efficacy in the observation group was significantly better than that in the control group (P<0.05). Spearman's test showed that the expression of miR-106b gradually decreased with the continuous improvement of the clinical efficacy (P<0.05). The AUC of miR-106b was 0.833, 95% CI: 0.779 to 0.887, the cut-off was 1.442. LEV combined with SV is effective in the treatment of children with epilepsy, and does not increase the clinical ADR. The expression of serum miR-106b in children can be used as a clinical prognostic indicator and a potential diagnostic indicator.

Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation to Treat Leukodystrophies: Clinical Practice Guidelines from the Hunter's Hope Leukodystrophy Care Network

The leukodystrophies are a heterogeneous group of inherited diseases characterized by progressive demyelination of the central nervous system leading to devastating neurologic symptoms and premature death. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) has been successfully used to treat certain leukodystrophies, including adrenoleukodystrophy, globoid leukodystrophy (Krabbe disease), and metachromatic leukodystrophy, over the past 30 years. To date, these complex patients have primarily been transplanted at a limited number of pediatric centers. As the number of cases identified through pregnancy and newborn screening is increasing, additional centers will be required to treat these children. Hunter's Hope created the Leukodystrophy Care Network in part to create and standardize high-quality clinical practice guidelines to guide the care of affected patients. In this report the clinical guidelines for the care of pediatric patients with leukodystrophies undergoing treatment with HSCT are presented. The initial transplant evaluation, determination of patient eligibility, donor selection, conditioning, supportive care, and post-transplant follow-up are discussed. Throughout these guidelines the need for early detection and treatment and the role of the partnership between families and multidisciplinary providers are emphasized.

Levetiracetam versus carbamazepine in treatment of rolandic epilepsy

PURPOSE

The aim of the current study was to systematically review the literature to compare the efficacy of levetiracetam (LEV) with that of carbamazepine (CBZ) to control seizures and reduce the burden of interictal epileptiform discharges in children with rolandic epilepsy (RE) and also to compare their tolerability.

METHODS

We searched the electronic database PubMed on January 9, 2019 for original articles that included the following English-language search terms in the title: "Rolandic epilepsy" OR "benign childhood epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes" since 2000. We concentrated our review on three main areas: 1. Neuropsychological impairments in children with RE; 2. Influence of epileptic activity on cognitive performance in RE; 3. Effects of antiepileptic drug (AED) therapies in RE.

RESULTS

The primary search yielded 308 papers. We reviewed the results and removed duplicate articles and all nonoriginal, non-English papers. Finally, after carefully reviewing the full texts, we included 44 original articles to achieve the aims of this review.

CONCLUSION

Physicians taking care of children with RE should be aware of the risks for cognitive dysfunctions in these patients and screen their patients for any subtle dysfunction that may affect their academic performance and achievement. If and when the physician decides to prescribe an AED for their patients with RE, LEV is probably a better option compared with CBZ to prescribe for these children.

Cleidocranial dysplasia syndrome with epilepsy: a case report

Background

Cleidocranial dysplasia is a rare autosomal dominant disorder resulting in skeletal and dental abnormalities due to the disturbance in ossification of the bones. The prevalence of CCD is one in a million of live births, and epileptic seizures are rarer in this disease.

Case presentation

Herein, we present a case of a 10-year-old girl, who not only suffered with cleidocranial dysplasia, but experienced frequent seizures. We initiated an anti-epileptic treatment for this patient with dose adjustments to her weight of levetiracetam (10 mg/kg, bid) for 3 months. The epileptic seizures were controlled, but the intelligence level and control of epilepsy need to be followed up for a longer duration.

Conclusions

In clinical practice, if a patient has unusual facies, typical clavicle defect, skull bone enlargement, and unclosed anterior fontanelle, we should consider the possibility of cleidocranial dysplasia, genetic detection are helpful to make a confirmed diagnosis. In such cases, early diagnosis and treatment is important to correct deformities and improve the quality of life of patients.

Effects of levetiracetam and valproic acid treatment on liver function tests, plasma free carnitine and lipid peroxidation in childhood epilepsies

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The relationship between anti-epileptic usage and oxidative damage has not yet been clearly understood. In our study, we investigated oxidative stress parameters, carnitine levels, liver function tests (LFT) and their relationship in epileptic children treated with valproic acid or levetiracetam.

METHOD

LFTs, serum free carnitine and oxidative damage markers and their relations with each other were determined in patients who are on valproic acid or levetiracetam treatment at least for 6 months. 25 patients on therapeutic doses of valproic acid, 26 patients on therapeutic doses of levetiracetam and 26 healthy volunteers as controls were included. LFTs, ammonia, carnitine, lipid peroxidation biomarker malondialdehyde (MDA) and a sensitive marker of DNA damage, 8-hydroxy-2-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) levels were measured. Results of patients are compared to healthy controls. The data is evaluated with IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0.

RESULTS

Ammonia and MDA levels were elevated in patients using levetiracetam; 8-OHdG levels were elevated in both patient groups. Carnitine levels were significantly low in patients under valproic acid therapy, however they were not found to be correlated with MDA, 8-OHdG or LFTs. MDA showed positive correlation with ammonia and 8-OHdG in the levetiracetam group.

CONCLUSION

We did not observe hepatotoxicity in patients under therapeutic doses of valproic acid. However, epileptic children under therapeutic doses of levetiracetam showed significantly elevated levels of MDA and 8-OHdG, which is supportive for oxidative damage under levetiracetam therapy. This result was observed for the first time in childhood epilepsies and further studies are needed to understand its mechanism.

Pharmacokinetic considerations for anti-epileptic drugs in children

INTRODUCTION

Epilepsy is a chronic and debilitating neurological disease, with a peak of incidence in the first years of life. Today, the vast armamentarium of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) available make even more challenging to select the most appropriate AED and establish the most effective dosing regimen. In fact, AEDs pharmacokinetics is under the influence of important age-related factors which cannot be ignored. Areas covered: Physiological changes occurring during development age (different body composition, immature metabolic patterns, reduced renal activity) can significantly modify the pharmacokinetic profile of AEDs (adsorption, volume of distribution, half-life, clearance), leading to an altered treatment response. We reviewed the main pharmacokinetic characteristics of AEDs used in children, focusing on age-related factors which are of relevance when treating this patient population. Expert opinion: To deal with this pharmacokinetic variability, physicians have at their disposal two tools: 1) therapeutic drug concentration monitoring, which may help to set the optimal therapeutic regimen for each patient and to monitor eventual fluctuation, and 2) the use of extended-release drug formulations, when available. In the next future, the development of 'ad-hoc' electronic dashboard systems will represent relevant decision-support tools making the AED therapy even more individualized and precise, especially in children.

Levetiracetam for epilepsy: an evidence map of efficacy, safety and economic profiles

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy, safety and economics of levetiracetam (LEV) for epilepsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, OpenGrey.eu and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for systematic reviews (SRs), meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, case reports and economic studies published from January 2007 to April 2018. We used a bubble plot to graphically display information of included studies and conducted meta-analyses to quantitatively synthesize the evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 14,803 records were obtained. We included 30 SRs/meta-analyses, 34 RCTs, 18 observational studies, 58 case reports and 2 economic studies after the screening process. The included SRs enrolled patients with pediatric epilepsy, epilepsy in pregnancy, focal epilepsy, generalized epilepsy and refractory focal epilepsy. Meta-analysis of the included RCTs indicated that LEV was as effective as carbamazepine (CBZ; treatment for 6 months: 58.9% vs 64.8%, OR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.50-1.16; 12 months: 54.9% vs 55.5%, OR=1.24, 95% CI: 0.79-1.93), oxcarbazepine (57.7% vs 59.8%, OR=1.34, 95% CI: 0.34-5.23), phenobarbital (50.0% vs 50.9%, OR=1.20, 95% CI: 0.51-2.82) and lamotrigine (LTG; 61.5% vs 57.7%, OR=1.22, 95% CI: 0.90-1.66). SRs and observational studies indicated a low malformation rate and intrauterine death rate for pregnant women, as well as low risk of cognitive side effects. But psychiatric and behavioral side effects could not be ruled out. LEV decreased discontinuation due to adverse events compared with CBZ (OR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.41-0.65), while no difference was found when LEV was compared with placebo and LTG. Two cost-effectiveness evaluations for refractory epilepsy with decision-tree model showed US$ 76.18 per seizure-free day gained in Canada and US$ 44 per seizure-free day gained in Korea.

CONCLUSION

LEV is as effective as CBZ, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital and LTG and has an advantage for pregnant women and in cognitive functions. Limited evidence supports its cost-effectiveness.

REGISTERED NUMBER

PROSPERO (No CRD 42017069367).

Pharmacokinetics and Drug Interaction of Antiepileptic Drugs in Children and Adolescents

Selecting the most appropriate antiepileptic drug (AED) or combination of drugs for each patient and identifying the most suitable therapeutic regimen for their needs is increasingly challenging, especially among pediatric populations. In fact, the pharmacokinetics of several drugs vary widely in children with epilepsy because of age-related factors, which can influence the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and elimination of the pharmacological agent. In addition, individual factors, such as seizure type, associated comorbidities, individual pharmacokinetics, and potential drug interactions, may contribute to large fluctuations in serum drug concentrations and, therefore, clinical response. Therapeutic drug concentration monitoring (TDM) is an essential tool to deal with this complexity, enabling the definition of individual therapeutic concentrations and adaptive control of dosing to minimize drug interactions and prevent loss of efficacy or toxicity. Moreover, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modelling integrated with dashboard systems have recently been tested in antiepileptic therapy, although more clinical trials are required to support their use in clinical practice. We review the mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, drug-drug interactions, and safety/tolerability profiles of the main AEDs currently used in children and adolescents, paying particular regard to issues of relevance when treating this patient population. Indications for TDM are provided for each AED as useful support to the clinical management of pediatric patients with epilepsy by optimizing pharmacological therapy.

Pyridoxine Add-On Treatment for the Control of Behavioral Adverse Effects Induced by Levetiracetam in Children: A Case-Control Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

Few studies on adult and pediatric patients have shown pyridoxine efficacy as additional therapy for those receiving levetiracetam (LEV) to prevent and mitigate behavioral adverse effects (BAEs).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to analyze the safety and efficacy of pyridoxine supplementation in the prevention of LEV adverse effects, including suicidal ideation.

METHODS

This randomized, case-control trial included patients receiving LEV as monotherapy treatment. Patients were subdivided into 2 groups, according to whether they were treated with LEV only (group 1) or LEV with supplemental pyridoxine (group 2).

RESULTS

In both cohorts, the most frequent BAEs were irritability/aggression followed by depression and confusion. Those patients (92%) who initiated pyridoxine after 1 month of LEV treatment did not need to change or suspend LEV ( P < 0.001), and BAE improved after 9.06 ± 3.05 days of pyridoxine supplementation. None of the patients complained of symptoms of pyridoxine toxicity, and no new adverse effects of LEV off-label were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, we found pyridoxine to be safe and effective in controlling LEV-induced BAEs in children.

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on levetiracetam in the treatment of pediatric patients with epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability of levetiracetam as mono- or adjunctive therapy in the treatment of children and adolescents with epilepsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published from January 2007 to December 2016 in the databases Web of Science, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and PubMed, Bing, Baidu, Google Scholar, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang Data. All of the studies eligible were compared for the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of levetiracetam with other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in epilepsy.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomized controlled trials on a total of 1,013 patients met the inclusion criteria in present study. Compared with other AEDs (oxcarbazepine, valproate, sulthiame, carbamazepine, and placebo), we found that levetiracetam had a comparable seizure-free rate (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.31; P=0.30). Regarding seizure-frequency reduction ≥50% from baseline, levetiracetam also seemed equivalent to other AEDs (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.16; P=0.35). In spite of patients treated with levetiracetam having a lower incidence of side effects compared with patients treated with other AEDs (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77-1.06), the difference between them was minute and not statistically significant (P=0.22).

CONCLUSION

Based on this meta-analysis, it seemed that levetiracetam had comparable effects concerning efficacy, tolerability, and adverse events. Nevertheless, 13 studies were insufficient to draw a conclusion that levetiracetam is effective as mono- and adjunctive therapy for all types of epilepsy syndromes and seizures. Larger-sample and more well-designed trials are needed to justify the widespread use of levetiracetam in the treatment of children and adolescents.

Investigator-initiated randomized controlled trials in children with epilepsy: Mission impossible?

Objective

In children many antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are prescribed off‐label due to a lack of well‐designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted a multicenter RCT in the Netherlands to compare levetiracetam and valproic acid as monotherapy in children with newly diagnosed epilepsy. After 2 years, we had to stop this investigator‐initiated trial prematurely because the inclusion rate was too low. We analyzed the reasons for this failure, assessed the various issues involved in performing RCTs in children, and now give recommendations for future studies.

Methods

A questionnaire was completed by all investigators involved in the study. It included questions about the motivation to participate and the perceived reasons for recruitment failure. We also studied literature about financial, logistic, legal, and ethical aspects of RCTs in children.

Results

Main reasons for recruitment failure were overestimation of the number of eligible AED‐naive children referred by general pediatricians; personal preferences of investigators for specific antiepileptic drugs; and the extensive administrative load due to extra regulations and guidelines for children. Fundraising for investigator‐initiated trials is difficult and the majority of RCTs concerning AEDs are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Involving children requires balancing between protection and participation; the randomization procedure and obtaining informed consent are complex for both children and parents.

Significance

Performing RCTs with AEDs in children is important but complicated by logistic, regulatory, legal, and ethical restrictions. Based on our recent experience, our advice to colleagues who are planning a similar trial would be to perform a feasibility pilot study; to set up intensive collaboration with referring pediatricians; to arrange support of a clinical trials unit and a local research nurse during the complete trial period; and to incorporate the possibility of extending the recruitment period. Major investments, both financially from governmental organizations and in time, are imperative for independent RCTs in children.

Not all that glitters is gold: A guide to the critical interpretation of drug trials in epilepsy

Clinical trials represent the best source of evidence on which to base treatment decisions. For such evidence to be utilized meaningfully, however, it is essential that results are interpreted correctly. This requires a good understanding of strengths and weaknesses of the adopted design, the clinical relevance of the outcome measures, and the many factors that could affect such outcomes. As a general rule, uncontrolled studies tend to provide misleading evidence as a result of the impact of confounders such as regression to the mean, patient‐related bias, and observer bias. On the other hand, although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are qualitatively superior, aspects of their execution may still decrease their validity. Bias and decreased validity in RCTs may occur by chance alone (for example, treatment groups may not necessarily be balanced for important variables despite randomization) or because of specific features of the trial design. In the case of industry‐driven studies, bias often influences the outcome in favor of the sponsor's product. Factors that need to be carefully scrutinized include (1) the purpose for which the trial is conducted; (2) potential bias due to unblinding or lack of blinding; (3) the appropriateness of the control group; (4) the power of the study in detecting clinically relevant differences; (5) the extent to which eligibility criteria could affect outcomes and be representative of routine clinical practice; (6) whether the treatments being compared are used optimally in terms of dosing, duration of treatment, and other variables; (7) the appropriateness of the statistical comparisons; (8) the clinical relevance of the outcome measures and whether all key outcome information is reported (for example, responder rates in completers); and (9) potential bias in the way results are presented and discussed. This article discusses each of these aspects and illustrates the discussion with examples taken from published antiepileptic drug trials.