Efficacy and tolerability of levetiracetam in children with epilepsy

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.

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.

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.

Safety of Levetiracetam in Paediatrics: A Systematic Review

Objective

To identify adverse events (AEs) associated with Levetiracetam (LEV) in children.

Methods

Databases EMBASE (1974-February 2015) and Medline (1946-February 2015) were searched for articles in which paediatric patients (≤18 years) received LEV treatment for epilepsy. All studies with reports on safety were included. Studies involving adults, mixed age population (i.e. children and adults) in which the paediatric subpopulation was not sufficiently described, were excluded. A meta-analysis of the RCTs was carried out and association between the commonly reported AEs or treatment discontinuation and the type of regimen (polytherapy or monotherapy) was determined using Chi² analysis.

Results

Sixty seven articles involving 3,174 paediatric patients were identified. A total of 1,913 AEs were reported across studies. The most common AEs were behavioural problems and somnolence, which accounted for 10.9% and 8.4% of all AEs in prospective studies. 21 prospective studies involving 1120 children stated the number of children experiencing AEs. 47% of these children experienced AEs. Significantly more children experienced AEs with polytherapy (64%) than monotherapy (22%) (p<0.001). Levetiracetam was discontinued in 4.5% of all children on polytherapy and 0.9% on monotherapy (p<0.001), the majority were due to behavioural problems.

Conclusion

Behavioural problems and somnolence were the most prevalent adverse events to LEV and the most common causes of treatment discontinuation. Children on polytherapy have a greater risk of adverse events than those receiving monotherapy.

Intravenous levetiracetam in Thai children and adolescents with status epilepticus and acute repetitive seizures

BACKGROUND

Intravenous levetiracetam is an option for treatment of status epilepticus (SE) and acute repetitive seizures (ARS). However, there have been relatively few studies with children and adolescents. Also, an appropriate dosage has yet to be determined.

AIM

This study investigated the safety and the efficacy of levetiracetam for intravenous treatment of convulsive status epilepticus and acute repetitive seizures in children and adolescents.

METHOD

Retrospectively, the study reviewed the medical records of 19 male and 31 female patients under 18 years of age who had received intravenous levetiracetam treatment either for acute repetitive seizures or for convulsive status epilepticus. The patients were admitted between April 1st, 2010 and December 31st, 2011 to the Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. Data were collected on underlying illnesses, etiology of seizures, indication for levetiracetam therapy, initial dosage, rate of infusion, untoward effects during infusion and emerged complications. Efficacy of treatment was defined as the termination of seizure within 30 min of completing levetiracetam infusion and no seizure recurrence within 6 h of initial treatment.

RESULTS

The age range of the 50 patients was from one day to 18 years (mean 79.6 months). The analysis included 52 episodes of 34 acute repetitive seizures (63.4%) and 18 convulsive status epilepticus (34.6%). Infusion rates ranged from 2 to 66 mg/kg/min (mean 29.6). Cessation of seizure was obtained in 59.6% of 52 episodes. Patients with underlying drug resistant epilepsy did not respond to levetiracetam therapy as well as patients with other etiology of seizures. There were no adverse drug reactions or untoward effects observed during the therapy.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous administration of levetiracetam is safe and effective for treatment of acute repetitive seizures and convulsive status epilepticus in children and adolescents. Failure of treatment may be related to underlying drug resistant epilepsy. Further study of appropriate initial dosage and pharmacokinetic variations in the patients is needed as possible explanation of the unresponsiveness.

Levetiracetam Monotherapy in Children with Epilepsy: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Levetiracetam, a second-generation anti-epileptic drug (AED) with a good efficacy and safety profile, is licensed as monotherapy for adults and children older than 16 years with focal seizures with or without secondary generalization. However, it is increasingly being used off-label in younger children.

OBJECTIVES

We critically reviewed the available evidence and discuss the present status of levetiracetam monotherapy in children 0-16 years old.

DATA SOURCES

We systematically searched the literature using PubMed, Web of Science and Embase up to August 2014 for articles on levetiracetam monotherapy in children. Keywords were levetiracetam, monotherapy and child*. The titles and abstracts of 532 articles were evaluated by AW, of which 480 were excluded. The full texts of the other 52 articles were assessed for relevance.

RESULTS

We covered one review, one opinion statement and 32 studies in this review, including four randomized controlled trials, ten open-label prospective studies, eight retrospective studies, and ten case reports. The formal evidence for levetiracetam monotherapy in children is minimal: it is potentially efficacious or effective as initial monotherapy in children with benign epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes. In all of the published studies, however, efficacy and tolerability of levetiracetam seemed to be good and comparable to other AEDs.

CONCLUSION

The data of 32 studies on levetiracetam monotherapy in children were insufficient to confirm that levetiracetam is effective as initial monotherapy for different types of seizures and/or epilepsy syndromes. There is still an urgent need for well designed trials to justify the widespread use of levetiracetam monotherapy in children of all ages.

Long-term accidental overdose of levetiracetam in an infant

Levetiracetam is one of the new anticonvulsant drugs that has a high therapeutic index and potential antiepileptogenic effects. Herein, we report a patient with multidrug refractory epilepsy and Ohtahara syndrome who was accidentally administered 300 mg/kg/d for 35 days by her mother. To our knowledge, there are only a few cases of accidental overdose of levetiracetam in pediatric patients reported in the literature, and this case study is the first to report such a high and long-term dose in an infant who showed no adverse effects.

Initial anticonvulsant monotherapy in routine care of children and adolescents: levetiracetam fails more frequently than valproate and oxcarbazepine due to a lack of effectiveness

Since anticonvulsants such as valproate or oxcarbazepine have quite a disadvantageous profile of possible adverse drug events (ADEs), safer alternatives are being sought. The newer anticonvulsant levetiracetam is often considered advantageous. We performed a chart review of children and adolescents aged from 0.5 to 16.9 years, who had been started on an initial monotherapy with levetiracetam, valproate, or oxcarbazepine between 2007 and 2011, in order to analyze the therapy's failure rate during the first year. We differentiated failure of monotherapy due to a lack of effectiveness and due to ADEs. No psychometric tests were performed. Lack of effectiveness and inacceptable ADEs were assumed according to the judgment of physicians and families. Anticonvulsive monotherapy failed in 29/61 (48 %) levetiracetam patients and in 18/49 (37 %) valproate patients (for focal and generalized epilepsies; n.s.). This was caused by a lack of effectiveness in 25/61 (41 %) levetiracetam patients and in 11/49 (22 %) valproate patients (p ≤ 0.05). A modification of therapy due to ADEs was performed in 4/61 (7 %) levetiracetam patients and in 7/49 (14 %) valproate patients (n.s.). An anticonvulsive monotherapy failed in 21/42 (50 %) patients treated with levetiracetam and in 10/34 (29 %) patients treated with oxcarbazepine (for focal epilepsies; n.s.). Changes of monotherapy were caused by a lack of effectiveness in 17/42 (40 %) of levetiracetam patients and in 6/34 (18 %) of oxcarbazepine patients (p ≤ 0.05). ADEs leading to changes in therapy were reported for 4/42 (10 %) of levetiracetam and 4/34 (12 %) of oxcarbazepine patients (n.s.). An initial monotherapy of levetiracetam failed more frequently due to a lack of effectiveness than a monotherapy with valproate or oxcarbazepine. We found no significant difference in therapy failure due to ADEs.

Clinical pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of levetiracetam

Status epilepticus and acute repetitive seizures still pose a management challenge despite the recent advances in the field of epilepsy. Parenteral formulations of old anticonvulsants are still a cornerstone in acute seizure management and are approved by the FDA. Intravenous levetiracetam (IV LEV), a second generation anticonvulsant, is approved by the FDA as an adjunctive treatment in patients 16 years or older when oral administration is not available. Data have shown that it has a unique mechanism of action, linear pharmacokinetics and no known drug interactions with other anticonvulsants. In this paper, we will review the current literature about the pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of IV LEV and the safety profile of this new anticonvulsant in acute seizure management of both adults and children.

Role of intravenous levetiracetam for acute seizure management in preterm neonates

BACKGROUND

Neonatal seizures are common in the first month of life and may impair neurodevelopmental outcome. Current antiepileptic drugs used in the treatment of neonatal seizures have limited efficacy and undesirable side effects. Intravenous levetiracetam is increasingly being used in the neonatal period to treat seizures. Presently, insufficient data about the efficacy and safety of intravenous levetiracetam in preterm neonates exist.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from preterm neonates who were treated with intravenous levetiracetam at our institution between January 2007 and December 2011. Data were acquired from review of our institution's electronic medical record regarding patients who were treated with intravenous levetiracetam during the neonatal period (0 to 28 days) and were born at preterm gestation (<37 weeks).

RESULTS

Twelve patients received a levetiracetam load of 25 to 50 mg/kg for neonatal seizures. Nine of 11 patients (82%) reached seizure cessation within 24 hours of receiving levetiracetam. No serious side effects were evident. Seven patients (59%) were discharged on oral levetiracetam alone, four patients (33%) were discharged on no oral antiepileptic drug, and one patient (8%) was discharged on levetiracetam and phenobarbital. Eleven of 12 patients were followed up to 6 months after receiving intravenous levetiracetam. Of these, six patients (55%) had achieved seizure freedom and been completely weaned off of all antiepileptic drugs. Three patients (27%) had achieved seizure freedom while still on oral levetiracetam.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous levetiracetam appears to be efficacious for seizure management in preterm neonates.

Efficacy and tolerability of intravenous levetiracetam in childrens

Intractable epilepsy in children poses a serious medical challenge. Acute repetitive seizures and status epilepticus leads to frequent emergency room visits and hospital admissions. Delay of treatment may lead to resistance to the first-line anticonvulsant therapies. It has been shown that these children continue to remain intractable even after acute seizure management with approved Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agents. Intravenous levetiracetam, a second-generation anticonvulsant was approved by the FDA in 2006 in patients 16 years and older as an alternative when oral treatment is not an option. Data have been published showing that intravenous levetiracetam is safe and efficacious, and can be used in an acute inpatient setting. This current review will discuss the recent data about the safety and tolerability of intravenous levetiracetam in children and neonates, and emphasize the need for a larger prospective multicenter trial to prove the efficacy of this agent in acute seizure management.

Perioperative seizure incidence and risk factors in 223 pediatric brain tumor patients without prior seizures

OBJECT

The incidence of, and risk factors for, perioperative seizures and the need for perioperative antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in previously seizure-free children with brain tumors remains unclear. The authors have undertaken a review of previously seizure-free pediatric patients with brain tumors undergoing resection to identify the incidence of seizures in the perioperative period, and to characterize risk factors for perioperative seizures in this population.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all patients between 0 and 19 years of age without prior seizures who underwent intracranial tumor resection at the authors' institution between January 2005 and December 2009.

RESULTS

Of the 223 patients undergoing 229 operations, 7.4% experienced at least 1 clinical seizure during the surgical admission. Over half of all tumors were supratentorial. Only 4.4% of patients received prophylactic AEDs. Independent factors associated with perioperative seizures included supratentorial tumor, age < 2 years, and hyponatremia due to syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone or cerebral salt wasting. Tumor type, lobe affected, operative blood loss, and length of surgery were not independently associated with seizure incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative seizures in previously seizure-free children undergoing resection of brain tumors are associated with supratentorial tumor location, age < 2 years, and postoperative hyponatremia. Perioperative seizures are not associated with tumor pathology, tumor size, or frontotemporal location. Due to the low incidence of seizures in this series in patients more than 2 years old with normal serum sodium, the authors recommend that pediatric patients with brain tumors not routinely receive perioperative prophylactic AEDs. However, the role for prophylaxis in patients younger than 2 years of age deserves further study.