Single-dose bioavailability of levetiracetam intravenous infusion relative to oral tablets and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics and tolerability of levetiracetam intravenous infusion compared with placebo in healthy subjects

A Simulation-Based Assessment of Levetiracetam Concentrations Following Fixed and Weight-Based Loading Doses: A Meta-Regression and Pharmacokinetic Modeling Analysis

Current recommendations for refractory status epilepticus (SE) unresponsive to benzodiazepines suggest a loading dose of levetiracetam (LEV) of 60 mg/kg to a maximum of 4500 mg. LEV therapeutic drug monitoring can help guide therapy and is garnering increasing attention. The objective of this study is to simulate the probability of target attainment (PTA) of fixed dose and weight-based loading doses of LEV with respect to established therapeutic target concentrations. Meta-regression of the current literature was performed to evaluate the relationship between intravenous LEV loading dose and seizure cessation in refractory SE patients. A previously published pharmacokinetic model was used to simulate the PTA capacity of competing single intravenous dosing schemes (fixed vs weight-based dosing) to achieve maximum (Cpeak) and 12-h (C12h) plasma concentrations that exceed 12 mg/L. The meta-regression indicated that dosage was not a statistically significant modulator of seizure control at dosages between 20 and 60 mg/kg. Stochastic simulations showed all dosing schemes achieved plasma Cpeak >12 mg/L, but C12h levels were <12 mg/L in subjects over 60 kg with a fixed dose ≤2000 mg or in subjects <60 kg with a weight-based dose <30 mg/kg. Dosages of 40 and 60 mg/kg provided ≥90% PTAs across all weights. Using a weight-based loading dose of 40 mg/kg, up to a suggested maximum of 4500 mg, improves the likelihood of achieving a sustained therapeutic drug concentration after the initial LEV dose, whereas fixed <3000 mg may not achieve the desired concentration before maintenance dosing.

Efficacy and safety of phenytoin and levetiracetam for acute symptomatic seizures in children with acute encephalitis syndrome: an open label, randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Seizures represent a significant comorbidity in children with acute encephalitis syndrome (AES). Despite this, there is a notable absence of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) directly comparing antiseizure medications (ASMs) in children with AES.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This RCT aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of phenytoin and levetiracetam in controlling seizures among children with AES. Both ASMs were administered with a loading followed by maintenance dose. After a 12-week period, children exhibiting a normal electroencephalogram and no seizure recurrence underwent tapering and discontinuation of ASM. Clinical follow-up occurred daily for the first week, and subsequently at 4, 12, and 24 weeks, evaluating seizure recurrence, incidence of status epilepticus, cognition, behavior, functional status, ASM acquisition cost, and adverse effects.

RESULTS

A total of 100 children (50 in each group) were enrolled. Within the first week, 5 and 3 children in the phenytoin and levetiracetam groups expired. Up to 1 week or death (whichever occurred earliest), 46 (92 %) and 44 (88 %) children remained seizure-free. Intention-to-treat analysis for both best and worst-case scenarios showed insignificant differences (p=0.52 and 1.0). No children experienced seizure recurrence after 1 week in either group. The number of patients with breakthrough status epilepticus, need for mechanical ventilation, duration of hospital stay, presence of epileptiform abnormalities in repeat electroencephalogram at 12 weeks, functional outcomes at 1, 12, and 24 weeks, as well as cognition and behavioral profiles at 24 weeks, were comparable in both groups (p>0.05 for all). However, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) causally related to study medications was significantly higher in the phenytoin group (p=0.04).

CONCLUSION

Levetiracetam and phenytoin are comparable in efficacy in terms of achieving clinical seizure control in children with acute encephalitis syndrome, although levetiracetam group demonstrated fewer adverse effects.

Early versus late switch over of antiseizure medications from intravenous to the oral route in children with seizures: Single-blinded, randomized controlled trial (ELAIO trial)

INTRODUCTION

Early switch-over of anti-seizure medications (ASMs) from intravenous to oral route may reduce the duration of hospitalization, drug acquisition costs, and behavioral upset in hospitalized children with seizures.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to compare short-term seizure recurrence within 1 week in hospitalized children aged 1 month to 18 years with new-onset/breakthrough seizures after an early versus late switch-over from intravenous to the oral route of ASMs. Secondary objectives were to compare the incidence of status epilepticus, duration of hospital stay, drug acquisition costs, and caregiver-reported satisfaction scores in both groups.

METHODS

In this single-blind randomized controlled trial, patients with seizures were categorized based on the number of ASMs required and the history of status epilepticus. Patients in each category were randomized in a 1:1 ratio into either early or late switch-over (ES or LS) groups. In the ES groups, ASMs were tapered one-by-one between 0 and 24 hours of seizure freedom, while in the LS groups, they were tapered one-by-one between 24 and 48 hours of seizure freedom.

RESULTS

A total of 112 children were enrolled in the study, with 56 in each arm. Seizure recurrence at 1 week and 12 weeks was comparable in ES and LS groups (3/55 vs. 1/54 at 1 week, p=0.61; 7/49 vs. 6/49 at 12 weeks, p=0.98). Drug acquisition costs were significantly lower in the ES group (393±274 vs. 658±568 INR, p=0.002). Thrombophlebitis and dysphoria were significantly more common in the LS group (p=0.008 and 0.03, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The early switch-over of ASMs from intravenous to oral route is safe without any significant increased risk of short-term seizure recurrence and also associated with a reduction in the incidence of thrombophlebitis and ASM acquisition costs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NO

CTRI/2021/03/032145.

An Explanation of Why Dose-Corrected Area Under the Curve for Alternate Administration Routes Can Be Greater than for Intravenous Dosing

It is generally believed that bioavailability (F) calculated based on systemic concentration area under the curve (AUC) measurements cannot exceed 1.0, yet some published studies report this inconsistency. We teach and believe, based on differential equation derivations, that rate of absorption has no influence on measured systemic clearance following an oral dose, i.e., determined as available dose divided by AUC. Previously, it was thought that any difference in calculating F from urine data versus that from systemic concentration AUC data was due to the inability to accurately measure urine data. A PubMed literature search for drugs exhibiting F > 1.0 and studies for which F was measured using both AUC and urinary excretion dose-corrected analyses yielded data for 35 drugs. We show and explain, using Kirchhoff's Laws, that these universally held concepts concerning bioavailability may not be valid in all situations. Bioavailability, determined using systemic concentration measurements, for many drugs may be overestimated since AUC reflects not only systemic elimination but also absorption rate characteristics, which is most easily seen for renal clearance measures. Clearance of drug from the absorption site must be significantly greater than clearance following an iv bolus dose for F(AUC) to correctly correspond with F(urine). The primary purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that studies resulting in F > 1.0 and/or greater systemic vs urine bioavailability predictions may be accurate. Importantly, these explications have no significant impact on current regulatory guidance for bioequivalence testing, nor on the use of exposure (AUC) measures in making drug dosing decisions.

A review of the pharmacology and clinical applications of levetiracetam in dogs and cats

OBJECTIVE

To review and summarize the pharmacology of the antiepileptic drug (AED), levetiracetam (LEV), and to discuss its clinical utility in dogs and cats.

DATA SOURCES

Veterinary and human peer-reviewed medical literature and the authors' clinical experience.

SUMMARY

LEV is an AED with mechanisms of action distinct from those of other AEDs. In people and small animals, LEV exhibits linear kinetics, excellent oral bioavailability, and minimal drug-drug interactions. Serious side effects are rarely reported in any species. LEV use is gaining favor for treating epilepsy in small animals and may have wider clinical applications in patients with portosystemic shunts, neuroglycopenia, and traumatic brain injury. In people, LEV may improve cognitive function in patients with dementia.

CONCLUSION

LEV is a well-tolerated AED with well-documented efficacy in human patients. Although its use is becoming more common in veterinary medicine, its role as a first-line monotherapy in small animal epileptics remains to be determined. This review of the human and animal literature regarding LEV describes its role in epileptic people and animals as well as in other disease states and provides recommendations for clinical usage.

Seizure control by adding on other anti-seizure medication on seizure during levetiracetam administration in patients with glioma-related epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a major symptom in patients with glioma. Levetiracetam (LEV) is recognized as a first-line treatment for glioma-related epilepsy. Increasing the LEV dose is allowed into patients with seizure occurrence against its initial dose. However, the therapeutic efficacy of increasing the LEV dose in response to seizure occurrence remains unclear.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 236 glioma patients who were treated with antiseizure medications (ASMs) internally at our institute between September 2010 and December 2017. Of these, the analysis focused on 156 patients treated with LEV who had a clear history of administration.

RESULTS

Seizure occurrences were observed in 21 of 75 patients (26.7%) who received LEV as first-line therapy and in 33 of 81 patients (40.7%) who received LEV as non-first-line treatment. The seizure control rate for seizure occurrence with LEV as first-line treatment was significantly higher in patients treated with addition of other ASMs (72.7%) than in those treated with increasing dose of LEV (20.0%) (p = 0.016). The seizure control rate for seizure occurrence with LEV as non-first-line treatment did not differ significantly between patients with addition of other ASMs (58.3%) and those treated with increasing dose of LEV (47.6%) (p = 0.554).

CONCLUSIONS

Adding other ASMs was more effective than increasing the LEV dose for seizure control in patients treated with LEV as first-line treatment, but they demonstrated comparable efficacy in patients treated with LEV as non-first-line treatment.

Testing the nonclinical Comprehensive In Vitro Proarrhythmia Assay (CiPA) paradigm with an established anti-seizure medication: Levetiracetam case study

Levetiracetam (LEV), a well-established anti-seizure medication (ASM), was launched before the original ICH S7B nonclinical guidance assessing QT prolongation potential and the introduction of the Comprehensive In Vitro Proarrhythmia Assay (CiPA) paradigm. No information was available on its effects on cardiac channels. The goal of this work was to "pressure test" the CiPA approach with LEV and check the concordance of nonclinical core and follow-up S7B assays with clinical and post-marketing data. The following experiments were conducted with LEV (0.25-7.5 mM): patch clamp assays on hERG (acute or trafficking effects), NaV 1.5, CaV 1.2, Kir 2.1, KV 7.1/mink, KV 1.5, KV 4.3, and HCN4; in silico electrophysiology modeling (Virtual Assay® software) in control, large-variability, and high-risk human ventricular cell populations; electrophysiology measurements in human induced pluripotent stem cell (hiPSC)-derived cardiomyocytes and dog Purkinje fibers; ECG measurements in conscious telemetered dogs after single oral administration (150, 300, and 600 mg/kg). Except a slight inhibition (<10%) of hERG and KV 7.1/mink at 7.5 mM, that is, 30-fold the free therapeutic plasma concentration (FTPC) at 1500 mg, LEV did not affect any other cardiac channels or hERG trafficking. In both virtual and real human cardiomyocytes, and in dog Purkinje fibers, LEV induced no relevant changes in electrophysiological parameters or arrhythmia. No QTc prolongation was noted up to 2.7 mM unbound plasma levels in conscious dogs, corresponding to 10-fold the FTPC. Nonclinical assessment integrating CiPA assays shows the absence of QT prolongation and proarrhythmic risk of LEV up to at least 10-fold the FTPC and the good concordance with clinical and postmarketing data, although this does not exclude very rare occurrence of QT prolongation cases in patients with underlying risk factors.

Pharmacokinetic considerations surrounding the use of levetiracetam for seizure prophylaxis in neurocritical care - an overview

INTRODUCTION

Levetiracetam (LEV) is one of the most widely used anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in clinical practice. This is due both to a different mechanism of action when compared to other ASMs and its easy handling. Indeed, because of its interesting pharmacokinetic properties, it is often used outside of the labelled indications, notably in the neurocritical setting as prophylaxis of epileptic seizures.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search was conducted and the most relevant studies on the pharmacokinetic properties of LEV were selected by two independent investigators. Current evidence on the use of ASM prophylaxis in the neurocritical setting was also reviewed, highlighting and discussing the strengths and limits of LEV as drug of choice for anti-epileptic prophylaxis in this scenario.

EXPERT OPINION

LEV has a "near-ideal" pharmacokinetic profile, which makes it an attractive drug for ASM prophylaxis in neurocritical care. However, current recommendations restrict ASMs prophylaxis to very selected circumstances and the role of LEV is marginal. Moreover, studies are generally designed to compare LEV versus phenytoin, whereas studies comparing LEV versus placebo are lacking. Further randomized trials will be needed to better elucidate LEV utility and its neuroprotective role in the neurocritical setting.

Bioequivalence and Safety of Levetiracetam Granules and Oral Solution: A Randomized, Single-Dose, 2-Period Crossover Study in Healthy Chinese Volunteers Under a Fasting Condition

The bioequivalence and safety of levetiracetam granules (test formulation) and oral solution (reference formulation) were evaluated in Chinese healthy volunteers under a fasting condition. A total of 24 subjects randomly received the test or reference formulation at the rate of 1:1. The alternative formulation was administered after a 7-day washout period. The blood samples were collected at designated time points. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry was applied to determine the plasma concentrations of levetiracetam. Adverse events were monitored and recorded. The 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of maximum plasma concentration, area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to the last quantifiable concentration, and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity between test preparation and reference preparation were 95.5% to 110.7%, 100.2% to 105.3%, and 100.3% to 105.7%, respectively, all within an acceptable bioequivalence range of 80.00% 125.00%. Both test and reference preparations were well tolerated. The trial confirmed that a single dose of 500-mg levetiracetam granules was bioequivalent to oral solution under a fasting condition, and may serve as a new dosage form of levetiracetam for clinical practice.

Relevant pharmacological interactions between alkylating agents and antiepileptic drugs: Preclinical and clinical data

Seizures are relatively common in cancer patients, and co-administration of chemotherapeutic and antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is highly probable and necessary in many cases. Nonetheless, clinically relevant interactions between chemotherapeutic drugs and AEDs are rarely summarized and pharmacologically described. These interactions can cause insufficient tumor and seizure control or lead to unforeseen toxicity. This review focused on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between alkylating agents and AEDs, helping readers to make a rational choice of treatment optimization, and thus improving patients' quality of life. As an example, phenobarbital, phenytoin, and carbamazepine, by increasing the hepatic metabolism of cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide and busulfan, yield smaller peak concentrations and a reduced area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of the prodrugs; alongside, the maximum concentration and AUC of their active products were increased with the possible onset of severe adverse drug reactions. On the other side, valproic acid, acting as histone deacetylase inhibitor, showed synergistic effects with temozolomide when tested in glioblastoma. The present review is aimed at providing evidence that may offer useful suggestions for rational pharmacological strategies in patients with seizures symptoms undertaking alkylating agents. Firstly, clinicians should avoid the use of enzyme-inducing AEDs in combination with alkylating agents and prefer the use of AEDs, such as levetiracetam, that have a low or no impact on hepatic metabolism. Secondly, a careful therapeutic drug monitoring of both alkylating agents and AEDs (and their active metabolites) is necessary to maintain therapeutic ranges and to avoid serious adverse reactions.

What Are the Predictors for Achieving Therapeutic Levetiracetam Serum Concentrations in Adult Neurological Patients?

BACKGROUND

Emerging studies suggest that levetiracetam pharmacokinetics can be difficult to predict in certain special patient populations, including the elderly, critically ill patients, and pregnant women.

OBJECTIVE

To determine clinical characteristics that predict the attainment of target serum concentrations in a heterogeneous group of patients prescribed levetiracetam.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted in adult neurological patients prescribed levetiracetam for the treatment or prophylaxis of seizures. Serum samples were collected after steady-state was reached, with a trough/steady-state serum concentration between 6 and 20 mg/L considered therapeutic. Logistic regression was used to identify significant predictors associated with the attainment of therapeutic concentrations.

RESULTS

One-hundred thirty patients (63 male) were included. The median (interquartile ranges) serum trough/steady-state concentration (Cmin/ss) was 16.2 (9.8-26.1) mg/L. The dose-normalized median (interquartile range) Cmin/ss was 11.5 (7.0-16.5) mg/L. The coefficient of variation of Cmin/ss and dose-normalized Cmin/ss were 69.4% and 64.2%, respectively. A weak correlation was observed between levetiracetam Cmin/ss and patient age (r = 0.21; P = 0.020), creatinine clearance (r = -0.26; P = 0.004), and daily dose (r = 0.42; P < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis identified age and daily levetiracetam dose as significant factors predicting target Cmin/ss attainment. The influence of concomitant antiepileptic therapy was not determined.

CONCLUSIONS

Age and daily dose were the most significant predictors of levetiracetam target-concentration attainment and should be considered in further investigations to develop a dosing algorithm for optimal levetiracetam therapy.

Use of extended-release and immediate-release anti-seizure medications with a long half-life to improve adherence in epilepsy: A guide for clinicians

Poor adherence to anti-seizure medications (ASMs) is associated with breakthrough seizures and potentially increased toxicity in patients with epilepsy. Extended-release (ER) drugs and immediate-release (IR) drugs with a long half-life (t_1/2) that permit once-daily dosing (such as, perampanel, zonisamide, lamotrigine [IR, ER] and topiramate [ER]) have a number of advantages over short t_1/2 ASMs that require multiple daily dosing. These advantages include simplification of dosing regimens, reduction in pill burden, and a decrease in the peak-to-trough fluctuations in serum drug concentration that may be associated with a decreased risk of adverse effects and seizures. Such properties have wider implications in improving patient adherence to treatment. This article is intended as a practical guide for clinicians that provides an overview of the features of ER ASMs and long t_1/2 IR ASMs that are advantageous in the context of patient adherence and pharmacokinetic "forgiveness" (after missing a dose). In addition, we note that efforts to improve adherence should not depend solely on drug dosing regimens and drug pharmacokinetics, but should be part of a wider strategy that includes therapeutic drug monitoring, improved healthcare provider-patient dialogue, patient education, and the use of "reminder" technology.

Comparison of levetiracetam versus phenytoin/fosphenytoin for busulfan seizure prophylaxis at a pediatric institution

INTRODUCTION

Busulfan is a chemotherapy agent used in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) conditioning regimens. Busulfan is associated with tonic-clonic seizures in ~10% of patients if administered without seizure prophylaxis. Historically, phenytoin was the most commonly utilized seizure prophylaxis agent; however, phenytoin is associated with CYP450 drug interactions and potentially increases the clearance of busulfan. Levetiracetam is being used more recently for busulfan seizure prophylaxis and is not associated with drug-drug interactions; however, data supporting use in pediatric patients are limited. The primary objective is to determine whether there is any difference in seizure rates or safety profile between phenytoin and levetiracetam when used for seizure prophylaxis.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review including patients who received busulfan between 2010 and 2019 were identified. The data were evaluated to compare the incidence of busulfan-induced seizures in HSCT patients receiving either phenytoin or levetiracetam and to determine the impact of drug-drug interactions on treatment outcomes/adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 342 patients were included with a median age of six years. Overall, five patients within the phenytoin group (n = 126) (4%) and zero patients in the levetiracetam group (n = 216) experienced a seizure (P = .007). There were no differences in liver enzyme elevations, recurrence rates of primary disease, and veno-occlusive disease.

CONCLUSION

Levetiracetam is effective at preventing seizures associated with busulfan administration with no clinically significant adverse effects when compared to phenytoin.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Levetiracetam in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Exhibiting Augmented Renal Clearance

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Patients with severe trauma exhibit augmented renal clearance, which can alter the dosing requirement of renally eliminated drugs. This study aimed to develop a population pharmacokinetic model for levetiracetam in patients with severe traumatic brain injury and aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, and use it to describe optimal dosing regimens.

METHODS

This was a prospective open-label observational study. Critically ill adult patients with severe traumatic brain injury or aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage without renal dysfunction and receiving levetiracetam were eligible. Serial levetiracetam plasma concentrations were analyzed to develop a population pharmacokinetic model and perform dosing simulations.

RESULTS

A two-compartment model best described the concentration-time data from 30 patients. The mean ± standard deviation parameter estimates were bioavailability (F) of 0.8 ± 0.2, absorption rate constant of 2.4 ± 2 h^-1, clearance 2.5 ± 1.1 L/h, central volume of distribution 8.9 ± 3.0 L/h, and transfer rate constraints of 1.8 ± 1.1 h^-1 from central to peripheral compartments and 0.7 ± 0.3 h^-1 from peripheral to central compartments. For the simulated intermittent dosing regimens, on average, the median trough concentration reduced by 50% for every 40-mL/min/1.73 m² increase in urinary creatinine clearance. Simulated doses of at least 6 g/day were required for some levels of augmented renal clearance.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with severe traumatic brain injury and aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage with augmented renal clearance are at risk of not achieving target levetiracetam plasma concentrations. We suggest dose titration guided by measured creatinine clearance, and/or, therapeutic drug monitoring if available, to minimize the risk of seizures.

Proof-of-concept that network pharmacology is effective to modify development of acquired temporal lobe epilepsy

Epilepsy is a complex network phenomenon that, as yet, cannot be prevented or cured. We recently proposed network-based approaches to prevent epileptogenesis. For proof of concept we combined two drugs (levetiracetam and topiramate) for which in silico analysis of drug-protein interaction networks indicated a synergistic effect on a large functional network of epilepsy-relevant proteins. Using the intrahippocampal kainate mouse model of temporal lobe epilepsy, the drug combination was administered during the latent period before onset of spontaneous recurrent seizures (SRS). When SRS were periodically recorded by video-EEG monitoring after termination of treatment, a significant decrease in incidence and frequency of SRS was determined, indicating antiepileptogenic efficacy. Such efficacy was not observed following single drug treatment. Furthermore, a combination of levetiracetam and phenobarbital, for which in silico analysis of drug-protein interaction networks did not indicate any significant drug-drug interaction, was not effective to modify development of epilepsy. Surprisingly, the promising antiepileptogenic effect of the levetiracetam/topiramate combination was obtained in the absence of any significant neuroprotective or anti-inflammatory effects as indicated by multimodal brain imaging and histopathology. High throughput RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) of the ipsilateral hippocampus of mice treated with the levetiracetam/topiramate combination showed that several genes that have been linked previously to epileptogenesis, were significantly differentially expressed, providing interesting entry points for future mechanistic studies. Overall, we have discovered a novel combination treatment with promise for prevention of epilepsy.

Pharmacology of new and developing intravenous therapies for the management of seizures and epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are administered orally for chronic use. Parenteral formulations might be necessary when the oral route is not feasible (e.g. an impairment of consciousness, trauma, dysphagia, gastrointestinal illness) or for treatment of seizure emergencies. At present, few intravenous (IV) formulations are available on the market.

AREAS COVERED

The purpose of this review is to summarize the pharmacological characteristics and clinical applications of IV medications that have been recently introduced to the armamentarium of epilepsy therapy or are currently being developed. Apart from AEDs, other compounds belonging to different pharmacological classes (e.g. diuretics, anesthetics), which have shown potential effectiveness in seizure control, are taken into consideration, and the pathophysiological premises supporting their use for epilepsy treatment are illustrated. The authors give particular focus to immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive agents, which have become the therapeutic cornerstones for immune-mediated epilepsies, despite regulatory obstacles.

EXPERT OPINION

In several circumstances, especially in the case of seizure-related emergencies, clinical practice seems not match literature-based evidence, and several IV AEDs are still used off-label. Strong evidence derived from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is needed to support the effectiveness and tolerability of any therapeutic approach, however common and "accepted' it may be, in order to guarantee patient safety and well-being.

Comparison of levetiracetam with phenytoin for the prevention of intravenous busulfan-induced seizures in hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients

Purpose

Busulfan is used as a conditioning regimen for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and is known to cause seizures as a side effect. As various anticonvulsant drugs have been reported, we conducted a retrospective investigation regarding the preventive effects and adverse events associated with different anticonvulsants administered alongside intravenous busulfan (ivBu) in our institution.

Methods

We targeted 104 patients who received ivBu at our institution from May 1, 2010 to April 30, 2017. We investigated the seizure prevention rate and adverse events rate under anticonvulsant prophylaxis.

Results

There were 70 cases (67.3%) of phenytoin administration and 34 cases (32.7%) of levetiracetam administration for anticonvulsant therapy. The seizure prevention rate was 98.6% for phenytoin and 100% for levetiracetam; seizures occurred in one out of 104 patients. There were no significant differences in the seizure prevention rate depending on the type of anticonvulsant. Further, there were no differences in adverse events.

Conclusions

Anticonvulsant prophylaxis is considered necessary for safe conditioning with ivBu. Adverse events associated with the use of levetiracetam are within an acceptable range. Further, levetiracetam is considered useful as a preventive drug against seizures during ivBu administration because it is easy to administer and has ideal pharmacokinetics for supportive care.

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Evaluation of Intravenous Levetiracetam in Children With Epilepsy

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of intravenous (IV) levetiracetam (LEV) as a monotherapy in children aged 1 month-16 years and to explore the pharmacokinetics (PK) of IV LEV and the time to seizure after IV then oral administration of LEV in pediatric children with epilepsy. Children diagnosed with acute unprovoked seizures requiring in-hospital IV LEV administration were included. After administration, the clinical seizure outcomes, side effects, and the Korean-Child Behavior Checklist were monitored and the PK and repeated time to seizure were analyzed via modeling using NONMEM software. Overall, 37 children with epilepsy were enrolled and underwent a PK analysis (median age, 4.6 years; median weight, 18.0 kg). Nine children (24.3%) had seizure recurrence during the follow-up period (median, 3.8 months) and 5 children (13.5%) experienced LEV-associated adverse events such as irritability (n = 2; 5.4%) and somnolence (n = 3; 8.1%). The plasma LEV concentrations after IV LEV were best described by a one-compartment linear PK model. Only body weight was associated with both the clearance and volume of distribution of LEV. The Weibull distribution model described the time to seizure recurrence well; no statistically significant predictor for the time to seizure was identified. Therefore, IV LEV was a well-tolerated and effective alternative in children with acute unprovoked seizures, and models for the PK and time to repeated seizure recurrence after LEV were successfully developed. In particular, the current use of a weight-based IV LEV dosing regimen in pediatric children is practical.

Newer Antiepileptic Drugs for Status Epilepticus in Adults: What's the Evidence?

Status epilepticus (SE) is one of the most frequent neurological emergencies. Despite this, understanding of its pathophysiology and evidence regarding its management is limited. Rapid, effective, and well-tolerated treatment to achieve seizure cessation is advocated to prevent brain damage or potentially lethal outcomes. The last two decades have witnessed an exponential increase in the number of available antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). These compounds, especially lacosamide and levetiracetam, in view of their intravenous formulation, have been increasingly prescribed in SE. These and other newer AEDs present a promising profile in terms of tolerability, with few centrally depressive effects, favorable pharmacokinetic properties, and fewer drug interactions than classical AEDs; conversely, they are more expensive. There is still no clear evidence to suggest a specific beneficial impact of newer AEDs on SE outcome, preventing any strong recommendation regarding their prescription in SE. Further comparative studies are urgently required to clarify their place and optimal use in the armamentarium of SE treatment.

Brivaracetam does not modulate ionotropic channels activated by glutamate, γ-aminobutyric acid, and glycine in hippocampal neurons

Brivaracetam (BRV) is a selective, high-affinity ligand for synaptic vesicle protein 2A (SV2A), recently approved as adjunctive treatment for drug-refractory partial-onset seizures in adults. BRV binds SV2A with higher affinity than levetiracetam (LEV), and was shown to have a differential interaction with SV2A. Because LEV was reported to interact with multiple excitatory and inhibitory ligand-gated ion channels and that may impact its pharmacological profile, we were interested in determining whether BRV directly modulates inhibitory and excitatory ionotropic receptors in central neurons. Voltage-clamp experiments were performed in primary cultures of mouse hippocampal neurons. At a supratherapeutic concentration of 100 μm, BRV was devoid of any direct effect on currents gated by γ-aminobutyric acidergic type A, glycine, kainate, N-methyl-d-aspartate, and α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid. Similarly to LEV, BRV reveals a potent ability to oppose the action of negative modulators on the inhibitory receptors. In conclusion, these results show that BRV contrasts with LEV by not displaying any direct action on inhibitory or excitatory postsynaptic ligand-gated receptors at therapeutic concentrations and thereby support BRV's role as a selective SV2A ligand. These findings add further evidence to the validity of SV2A as a relevant antiepileptic drug target and emphasize the potential for exploring further presynaptic mechanisms as a novel approach to antiepileptic drug discovery.

Seizures in Pediatric Patients With Liver Transplant and Efficacy of Levetiracetam

The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk factors, clinical implications, and prognosis of new-onset seizures that occurred after pediatric liver transplantation, and to assess the efficacy of levetiracetam treatment. The clinical and laboratory data of liver transplanted 28 children who had seizures after liver transplantation and specifically of 18 children who received levetiracetam were analyzed retrospectively. Sixteen patients (88.9%) remained seizure-free and in 2 (11.1%), more than 50% reduction in seizures were detected with levetiracetam treatment. In conclusion, seizures are generally the most common complication by a spectrum of seizure types, and sometimes cause symptomatic epilepsy. The most common risk factors for seizures in transplant recipients is immunosuppressant toxicity. Currently, there isn't a specific treatment involving the transplant patient population. Levetiracetam may be preferable in pediatric patients as it's reliable for liver disease and has advantages in the treatment of postoperative seizures due to its intravenous usage.

Status Epilepticus and Beyond: A Clinical Review of Status Epilepticus and an Update on Current Management Strategies in Super-refractory Status Epilepticus

Status epilepticus and refractory status epilepticus represent some of the most complex conditions encountered in the neurological intensive care unit. Challenges in management are common as treatment options become limited and prolonged hospital courses are accompanied by complications and worsening patient outcomes. Antiepileptic drug treatments have become increasingly complex. Rational polytherapy should consider the pharmacodynamics and kinetics of medications. When seizures cannot be controlled with medical therapy, alternative treatments, including early surgical evaluation can be considered; however, evidence is limited. This review provides a brief overview of status epilepticus, and a recent update on the management of refractory status epilepticus based on evidence from the literature, evidence-based guidelines, and experiences at our institution.

Levetiracetam Pharmacokinetics in a Patient with Intracranial Hemorrhage Undergoing Continuous Veno-Venous Hemofiltration

Patient: Male, 78

Final Diagnosis: Right thalamic intraparenchymal hemorrhage with intraventricular extension

Symptoms: Altered mental status • left sided weakness

Medication: Levetiracetam

Clinical Procedure: Continuous renal replacement therapy

Specialty: Critical Care Medicine

The SAMUKeppra study in prehospital status epilepticus: lessons for future study

In the Lancet Neurology article "Prehospital treatment with levetiracetam plus clonazepam or placebo plus clonazepam in status epilepticus (SAMUKeppra): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial" the authors conducted a prehospital, randomized controlled study to determine which treatment is more effective for status epilepticus (SE): benzodiazepine alone, or in combination with levetiracetam (LEV). Although the study had negative results, several aspects of the trial design likely masked any added effect that LEV may have had in controlling SE, including: higher doses of benzodiazepines, lower thresholds for determining cessation of SE, and a smaller sample size. Regardless, the study reaffirms the effectiveness and importance of early and adequate benzodiazepine dosing and helps guide us in designing future studies for treatment of SE.

Levetiracetam pharmacokinetics in Japanese subjects with renal impairment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The anti-epileptic drug levetiracetam is excreted renally. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of levetiracetam in Japanese patients with renal impairment including end-stage renal disease (ESRD) to confirm that existing dosing instructions-based on data from European patients-are appropriate in a Japanese population.

METHODS

This was a nonrandomised, open-label trial. Six participants were allocated to each of five groups (normal renal function, mild, moderate and severe renal impairment and ESRD); 30 participants in total. Participants received a single dose of levetiracetam 500 mg (normal or mild), 250 mg (moderate or severe), or 500 mg followed by 250 mg post-haemodialysis (ESRD). Blood and urine samples were obtained serially for levetiracetam and metabolite determinations. Noncompartmental pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated and steady-state profiles were simulated using the superposition method.

RESULTS

In this trial, levetiracetam total clearance decreased proportionally with creatinine clearance: 52, 31, 25, 20 and 11 mL/min/1.73 m(2) in healthy controls and in patients with mild, moderate, severe renal impairment, and ESRD, respectively. Simulated levetiracetam plasma profiles using the recommended dose adjustments were within the range for normal renal function. Overall, results from this trial were consistent with historical European data.

CONCLUSION

These findings confirm that the dosing instructions are appropriate for Japanese patients with renal impairment including ESRD.

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.

Pharmacokinetics of the antiepileptic drug levetiracetam in healthy Japanese and Caucasian volunteers following intravenous administration

The intravenous (iv) formulation of levetiracetam has been available in clinical practice worldwide for several years, but not in Japan. Two open-label studies were conducted: Study A evaluated the bioequivalence of iv and oral tablet formulations in healthy Japanese volunteers; and Study B subsequently compared the pharmacokinetics of iv levetiracetam in healthy Japanese and Caucasian volunteers. Study A had a randomised, two-way crossover design; a single 1,500 mg levetiracetam dose was administered as a 15-min iv infusion and as 3 × 500 mg oral tablets to Japanese volunteers. In Study B, 1,500 mg levetiracetam was administered as single and repeated 15-min iv infusions to Japanese and Caucasian volunteers. Overall, 26/27 volunteers completed Study A and 32/32 (16 Japanese; 16 Caucasian) completed Study B. In Study A, the point estimate and 90 % confidence interval (CI) for the geometric least squares mean (LSM) ratio (iv vs oral) were fully included within the acceptance range for bioequivalence (0.85-1.25) for the area under plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to last quantifiable observation (AUClast 0.97 [0.95, 0.99]), but not for the maximum plasma concentration (C max 1.64 [1.47, 1.83]). In Study B, after a single iv infusion, the point estimates (90 % CI) for the geometric LSM ratio (Japanese vs Caucasian) for body weight-normalised C max and AUClast were 1.21 (1.07, 1.36) and 0.97 (0.90, 1.04), respectively. Corresponding values after repeated iv infusions were C max,ss 1.01 (0.91, 1.12) and AUCτ,ss 0.89 (0.83, 0.96). Levetiracetam was well tolerated in both studies. Study A did not demonstrate the bioequivalence of single doses of levetiracetam 1,500 mg administered as an iv infusion and as oral tablets in healthy Japanese adults. Study B, however, showed that pharmacokinetic profiles were generally similar between Japanese and Caucasian adults after single and repeated iv infusions of levetiracetam 1,500 mg.

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.

Prospective Open-Label, Single-Arm, Multicenter, Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetic Studies of Intravenous Levetiracetam in Children With Epilepsy

Levetiracetam given via intravenous administration has been shown to be an effective alternative in adults with epilepsy when oral administration is not feasible. This study was a prospective single-arm, multicenter study to assess tolerability, safety, and pharmacokinetics of intravenous levetiracetam in children with epilepsy. Children with epilepsy ages 1 month to 16 years requiring intravenous levetiracetam were enrolled. Assessments included vital signs, electrocardiogram, hematology, chemistry, plasma concentrations of antiepileptic medications, weight, physical/neurological examinations, and pharmacokinetics. A total of 52 patients were enrolled. Mild to moderate treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 63%, the most frequent being pyrexia and dry mouth. Most other treatment-emergent adverse events were considered unrelated to intravenous levetiracetam administration. Therefore, intravenous levetiracetam in the acute setting was overall well tolerated in children 1 month to 16 years.

Perioperative substitution of anti-epileptic drugs

A common problem in brain and abdominal surgery is the perioperative substitution of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) when patients are temporarily unable to take these drugs orally. We searched the literature for clinical trials with patients or healthy volunteers in whom non-oral formulations of AEDs as substitution were tested. Different search engines, handbooks, expert opinion and our own experience, were used. Pharmaceutical companies were approached for recommendations. This led to three categories of replacement: 1. commercial alternative (n = 10) for clonazepam, diazepam, lacosamide, levetiracetam, lorazepam, midazolam, nitrazepam, phenobarbital, phenytoin, and valproic acid; 2. alternatives that must be prepared (n = 6) for carbamazepine, clobazam, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, primidone, topiramate; 3. no alternative (n = 7) for ethosuccimide, felbamate, retigabine, stiripentol, tiagabine, vigabatrin, zonisamide. Thus, for a substantial number of AEDs, unofficial perioperative treatment strategies need to be followed for lack of alternatives to oral administration. There is little clinical research addressing the equivalence of oral and parenteral formulas. Perioperative substitution of AEDs is an underestimated problem, and may increase the risk of postoperative seizures.

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.

Seizure treatment in transplant patients

OPINION STATEMENT

Solid organ transplantation is frequently complicated by a spectrum of seizure types, including single partial-onset or generalized tonic-clonic seizures, acute repetitive seizures or status epilepticus, and sometimes the evolution of symptomatic epilepsy. There is currently no specific evidence involving the transplant patient population to guide the selection, administration, or duration of antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy, so familiarity with clinical AED pharmacology and application of sound judgment are necessary for successful patient outcomes. An initial detailed search for symptomatic seizure etiologies, including metabolic, infectious, cerebrovascular, and calcineurin inhibitor treatment-related neurotoxic complications such as posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES), is imperative, as underlying central nervous system disorders may impose additional serious risks to cerebral or general health if not promptly detected and appropriately treated. The mainstay for post-transplant seizure management is AED therapy directed toward the suspected seizure type. Unfavorable drug interactions could place the transplanted organ at risk, so choosing an AED with limited interaction potential is also crucial. When the transplanted organ is dysfunctional or vulnerable to rejection, AEDs without substantial hepatic metabolism are favored in post-liver transplant patients, whereas after renal transplantation, AEDs with predominantly renal elimination may require dosage adjustment to prevent adverse effects. Levetiracetam, gabapentin, pregabalin, and lacosamide are drugs of choice for treatment of partial-onset seizures in post-transplant patients given their efficacy spectrum, generally excellent tolerability, and lack of drug interaction potential. Levetiracetam is the drug of choice for primary generalized seizures in post-transplant patients. When intravenous drugs are necessary for acute seizure management, benzodiazepines and fosphenytoin are the traditional and best evidence-based options, although intravenous levetiracetam, valproate, and lacosamide are emerging options. Availability of several newer AEDs has greatly expanded the therapeutic armamentarium for safe and efficacious treatment of post-transplant seizures, but future prospective clinical trials and pharmacokinetic studies within this specific patient population are needed.

Results of phase II pharmacokinetic study of levetiracetam for prevention of post-traumatic epilepsy

Levetiracetam (LEV) has antiepileptogenic effects in animals and is a candidate for prevention of epilepsy after traumatic brain injury. Pharmacokinetics of LEV in TBI patients was unknown. We report pharmacokinetics of TBI subjects≥6years with high PTE risk treated with LEV 55mg/kg/day orally, nasogastrically or intravenously for 30days starting ≤8h after injury in a phase II safety and pharmacokinetic study. Forty-one subjects (26 adults and 15 children) were randomized to PK studies on treatment days 3 and 30. Thirty-six out of forty-one randomized subjects underwent PK study on treatment day 3, and 24/41 subjects underwent PK study on day 30. On day 3, mean T(max) was 2.2h, C(max) was 60.2μg/ml and AUC was 403.7μg/h/ml. T(max) was longer in the elderly than in children and non-elderly adults (5.96h vs. 1.5h and 1.8h; p=0.0001). AUC was non-significantly lower in children compared with adults and the elderly (317.4μg/h/ml vs. 461.4μg/h/ml and 450.2μg/h/ml; p=0.08). C(max) trended higher in i.v.- versus tablet- or n.g.-treated subjects (78.4μg/ml vs. 59μg/ml and 48.2μg/ml; p=0.07). AUC of n.g. and i.v. administrations was 79% and 88% of AUC of oral administration. There were no significant PK differences between days 3 and 30. Treatment of TBI patients with high PTE risk with 55mg/kg/day LEV, a dose with antiepileptogenic effect in animals, results in plasma LEV levels comparable to those in animal studies.

Current oral and non-oral routes of antiepileptic drug delivery

Antiepileptic drugs are commonly given orally for chronic treatment of epilepsy. The treatment of epilepsy requires administration of medications for both acute and chronic treatment using multiple types of formulations. Parenteral routes are used when the oral route is unavailable or a rapid clinical response is required. Lorazepam and midazolam can be administered by the buccal, sublingual or intranasal routes. Consensus documents recommend rectal diazepam, buccal midazolam or intranasal midazolam for the out-of-hospital treatment of early status epilepticus. In the United States, diazepam is the only FDA approved rectal formulation. With the lack of parenteral, buccal or intranasal formulations for many of the antiepileptic drugs, the use of the rectal route of delivery to treat acute seizures or to maintain therapeutic concentrations is suitable for many, but not all antiepileptic medications. There is a significant need for new non-oral formulations of the antiepileptic drugs when oral administration is not possible.

Intravenous and oral levetiracetam in patients with a suspected primary brain tumor and symptomatic seizures undergoing neurosurgery: the HELLO trial

BACKGROUND

Levetiracetam (LEV) is a newer anticonvulsant with a favorable safety profile. There seem to be no relevant drug interactions, and an intravenous formulation is available. Therefore, LEV might be a suitable drug for the perioperative anticonvulsive therapy of patients with suspected brain tumors undergoing neurosurgery.

METHODS

In this prospective study (NCT00571155) patients with suspected primary brain tumors and tumor-related seizures were perioperatively treated with oral and intravenous LEV up to 4 weeks before and until 4 weeks after a planned neurosurgical procedure.

FINDINGS

Thirty patients with brain tumor-related seizures and intended neurosurgery were included. Three patients did not undergo the scheduled surgery after enrollment, and two patients were lost to follow-up. Therefore, 25 patients were fully evaluable. After initiation of therapy with LEV, 100% of the patients were seizure-free in the pre-surgery phase (3 days up to 4 weeks before surgery), 88% in the 48 h post-surgery phase and 84% in the early follow-up phase (48 h to 4 weeks post surgery). Treatment failure even after dose escalation to 3,000 mg/day occurred in three patients. No serious adverse events related to the treatment with LEV occurred.

CONCLUSION

Our data show the feasibility and safety of oral and intravenous LEV in the perioperative treatment of tumor-related seizures. Although this was a single arm study, the efficacy of LEV appears promising. Considering the side effects and interactions of other anticonvulsants, LEV seems to be a favorable option in the perioperative treatment of brain tumor-related seizures.

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

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

Recent and future advances in the treatment of status epilepticus

Status epilepticus (SE) is one of the most frequent neurological emergencies with an incidence of 20/100,000 per year and a mortality between 3% and 40% depending on etiology, age, SE type and duration. Generalized convulsive forms of SE (GTCSE), in particular, require aggressive treatment. Presently, only 55-80% of cases of GTCSE are controlled by initial therapy. Therefore, there is a need for new options for the treatment of SE. Here we review the current standard treatment including recent advances and provide a summary of preclinical and clinical data regarding treatment options which may become available in the near future. The initial treatment of SE usually consists of a benzodiazepine (preferably lorazepam 0.1 mg/kg) followed by phenytoin or fosphenytoin or valproic acid (where approved for SE therapy). With intravenous formulations of levetiracetam, available since 2006, and lacosamide, which is expected for autumn of 2008, new treatment options have become available, that should be evaluated in prospective controlled trials. If SE remains refractory, the induction of general anaesthesia using propofol, midazolam, thiopental, or pentobarbital is warranted in GTCSE.

Levetiracetam compared to valproic acid: plasma concentration levels, adverse effects and interactions in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage

OBJECTIVE

Both valproic acid and levetiracetam are anti-epileptic drugs, often used either alone or in combination. The present study compares valproate (VPA) with levetiracetam (LEV) as an intravenous (i.v.) anticonvulsant treatment in intensive care patients suffering from aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) with a high risk of seizures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective, single-center patient registry of 35 intensive care unit (ICU) patients with onset seizure and/or high risk of seizures underwent an anticonvulsive, first-line single treatment regimen either with VPA or LEV. Plasma concentrations (pc), interactions between drugs in the ICU context, adverse effects and seizure occurrences were observed and recorded.

RESULTS

A significant decrease in the pc in patients treated with LEV was observed after changing from intravenous (160±51μmol/l) to enteral liquid application (113±58μmol/l), corresponding to a 70.3% bioavailability for enteral liquid applications. The pc in VPA patients decreased significantly, from (491±138μmol/l) to (141±50μmol/l), after adding meropenem to the therapy (p<0.05). Three epileptic seizures occurred during anticonvulsive therapy in the LEV group, and two in the VPA group, including one non-convulsive status epilepticus (NCSE).

CONCLUSION

Though this finding needs further verification, the enteral liquid application of levetiracetam seems to be associated with lower bioavailability than the common oral application of levetiracetam. The use of the antibiotic drug meropenem together with valproic acid leads to lower pc levels in patients treated with of valproic acid. For clinical practice, this indicates the need to monitor the levels of valproic acid in combination with meropenem.

Modern methods for analysis of antiepileptic drugs in the biological fluids for pharmacokinetics, bioequivalence and therapeutic drug monitoring

Epilepsy is a chronic disease occurring in approximately 1.0% of the world's population. About 30% of the epileptic patients treated with availably antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) continue to have seizures and are considered therapy-resistant or refractory patients. The ultimate goal for the use of AEDs is complete cessation of seizures without side effects. Because of a narrow therapeutic index of AEDs, a complete understanding of its clinical pharmacokinetics is essential for understanding of the pharmacodynamics of these drugs. These drug concentrations in biological fluids serve as surrogate markers and can be used to guide or target drug dosing. Because early studies demonstrated clinical and/or electroencephalographic correlations with serum concentrations of several AEDs, It has been almost 50 years since clinicians started using plasma concentrations of AEDs to optimize pharmacotherapy in patients with epilepsy. Therefore, validated analytical method for concentrations of AEDs in biological fluids is a necessity in order to explore pharmacokinetics, bioequivalence and TDM in various clinical situations. There are hundreds of published articles on the analysis of specific AEDs by a wide variety of analytical methods in biological samples have appears over the past decade. This review intends to provide an updated, concise overview on the modern method development for monitoring AEDs for pharmacokinetic studies, bioequivalence and therapeutic drug monitoring.

Assessment of levetiracetam bioavailability from targeted sites in the human intestine using remotely activated capsules and gamma scintigraphy: Open-label, single-dose, randomized, four-way crossover study in healthy male volunteers

BACKGROUND

Levetiracetam is a broad-spectrum antiepileptic drug that binds to synaptic vesicle protein SV2A. Levetiracetam is indicated in the adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures, myoclonic seizures, and generalized tonic-clonic seizures. It is also approved in Europe as monotherapy for newly diagnosed partial-onset seizures. A Phase I clinical pharmacology trial was conducted during preregistration clinical development to better understand the regional gastrointestinal (GI) absorption of levetiracetam.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the relative bioavailability of levetiracetam in various regions of the GI tract using a noninvasive, remote-controlled capsule device providing targeted drug delivery, relative to that after oral administration, and explored the drug's absorption characteristics in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

Pharmacokinetic data were obtained from healthy men aged 18 to 65 years in an open-label, single-dose, randomized, 4-way crossover study. Treatments included levetiracetam 250 mg administered as an immediate-release tablet and capsule delivery of 250 mg drug substance (levetiracetam powder without excipients) to the proximal small bowel, distal small bowel, and ascending colon. The location of the capsule in the GI tract was monitored using γ-scintigraphic imaging. Blood samples for plasma levetiracetam concentration were collected before dosing; at 10, 20, 30, and 45 minutes; and at 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 16, 20, and 24 hours after tablet intake or after capsule activation. Pharmacokinetic parameters C(max), T(max), AUC₀₋(last), AUC₀₋(∞) and t(½) were calculated using noncompartmental methods. Tolerability was determined using clinical assessment, monitoring of vital signs, laboratory analysis, and interviews with the volunteers regarding adverse events.

RESULTS

Nine healthy men, 7 whites and 2 Asians, were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 31 [14] years; weight, 77 [5] kg; height, 176 [6] cm). Six volunteers completed all 4 treatments. Seven adverse events (headache [3], lethargy [2], tachycardia [1], and contusion [1]) were reported in 5 volunteers, but only 2 (headache and lethargy) were judged by the investigator to be possibly drug related. The geometric mean (%CV) AUC(0-last) values of levetiracetam delivered in the proximal small bowel, distal small bowel, ascending colon, and stomach (oral tablet) were 58.2 (9.3%), 59.6 (8.9%), 51.5 (12.0%), and 59.0 (7.4%) μg · h/mL, respectively. Values for bioavailability in the proximal small bowel, distal small bowel, and ascending colon relative to the tablet were 98.5% (95% CI, 89.7%-108.2%), 100.8% (95% CI, 91.4%-111.1%), and 87.1% (95% CI, 77.9%-97.5%).

CONCLUSION

After delivery in the proximal small bowel, distal small bowel, or ascending colon, the systemic bioavailability of levetiracetam (AUC), but not C(max) and T(max), appeared comparable to that after oral administration and thus appeared site independent in this small group of healthy fasting men.

Intramuscular and intravenous levetiracetam in humans: safety and pharmacokinetics

A study in dogs demonstrated that the commercially available formulation of IV levetiracetam (LEV) could be given safely IM and was quickly and completely absorbed. In this crossover study, 5 women and 5 men were given IM and IV LEV. This study demonstrates that administration of 5ml (500mg) IM LEV is well tolerated and its bioavailability is equivalent to an IV injection.