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

Parenteral Long-Acting Antiseizure Medications Are Used More Often to Treat Seizure Clusters Than Convulsive Status Epilepticus in the Pediatric Emergency Department

Objective:Recent trials provide high-quality evidence for second-line treatment of convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) in children. However, the most effective medications for other seizure emergencies are poorly understood without established treatment algorithms. We investigated children presenting to the emergency department with repetitive or prolonged convulsions who required intravenous long-acting antiseizure medications, to determine the relative importance and treatment responsiveness of status epilepticus and seizure clusters. Methods: Retrospective observational study in the emergency department, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia (annual census 90 000) using hospital electronic medical records data of patients presenting with seizures in 2018. For patients receiving parenteral long-acting antiseizure medications, seizures were categorized as convulsive status epilepticus, nonconvulsive status epilepticus, and seizure clusters. Results: 1468 patients (2% of all visits) presented with seizures to the emergency department in 2018. Long-acting antiseizure medications were administered to 97 (7%) children for the emergency management of seizures. The majority presented with seizure clusters (n = 69; 71%). Only 11 (11%) were in convulsive status epilepticus and 17 (18%) in nonconvulsive status epilepticus. In convulsive status epilepticus, nonconvulsive status epilepticus, and seizure clusters, phenytoin was used in 27%, 53%, and 58% and levetiracetam in 73%, 47%, and 32%, respectively. Conclusions:Convulsive status epilepticus represents a small portion of patients requiring parenteral long-acting antiseizure medications. Seizure clusters accounted for >6 times the number of convulsive status epilepticus, yet evidence and treatment algorithms are lacking.

Emergency management of the paediatric patient with convulsive status epilepticus

This guideline addresses the emergency management of convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) in children and infants older than 1 month of age. It replaces a previous position statement from 2011, and includes a new treatment algorithm and table of recommended medications based on new evidence and reflecting the evolution of clinical practice over the past several years. This statement emphasizes the importance of timely pharmacological management of CSE, and includes some guidance for diagnostic approach and supportive care.

La prise en charge d’urgence du patient pédiatrique en état de mal épileptique convulsif

Les présentes lignes directrices portent sur la prise en charge d’urgence de l’état de mal épileptique convulsif chez les nourrissons âgés de plus d’un mois et les enfants. Elles remplacent un document de principes publié en 2011 et comprennent un nouvel algorithme thérapeutique, de même qu’un tableau des médicaments recommandés en fonction de nouvelles données probantes qui reflètent l’évolution de la pratique clinique des quelques dernières années. Le présent document de principes souligne l’importance d’un traitement pharmacologique rapide de l’état de mal épileptique convulsif et contient des conseils relativement à la démarche diagnostique et aux soins de soutien.

Efficacy and safety profile of intravenous levetiracetam versus phenytoin in convulsive status epilepticus and acute repetitive seizures in children

PURPOSE

Although phenytoin is one of the most commonly used antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), it has potential serious side effects and drug interactions. Levetiracetam is a relatively newer AED with favorable pharmacokinetics and could be an effective and safer option for the treatment of convulsive status epilepticus (CSE). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety profile of intravenous levetiracetam and phenytoin as second-line treatment agents in children with CSE and acute repetitive seizures (ARS).

METHOD

Two hundred seventy-seven patients aged between 1 month and 18 years who received intravenous levetiracetam or phenytoin as a second-line AED with the diagnosis of CSE or ARS were retrospectively evaluated. Drug efficacy was defined as control of seizures without the need for any additional medication after completion of the infusion and no recurrence in the following 12 h. The primary outcome was drug efficacy. The secondary outcomes included application of an additional second-line AED, induction of anesthesia, and admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and drug-related adverse reactions.

RESULTS

No differences were found between the two treatment groups with regard to patient characteristics and seizure type. The efficacy of levetiracetam was higher than that of phenytoin (77.6% vs 57.7%, P = 0.011) in children with CSE. There was no significant difference between the efficacy rates of levetiracetam and phenytoin for ARS (55.8% vs 58.8%, P = 0.791). Overall, drug efficacy was 70.9% for levetiracetam and 58.1% for phenytoin (P = 0.048). For CSE, the need for additional second-line treatment, anesthesia induction, and ICU admission was higher in the phenytoin group (P = 0.001, P = 0.038, P = 0.02, respectively). Drug-related adverse reactions were more frequent in the phenytoin group than the levetiracetam group (23.3% vs 1.4%; P < 0.001). The most common adverse reaction in the phenytoin group was hypotension. Phenytoin-related anaphylaxis was detected in one patient. No serious adverse effects related to levetiracetam were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous levetiracetam seems as effective as intravenous phenytoin in emergency treatment of children with ARS and more effective for CSE in stopping the seizure with less risk of recurrence. Levetiracetam has fewer cardiovascular side effects and has a safer profile than phenytoin. Intravenous levetiracetam is a favorable option as a first second-line AED for pediatric seizures.

Can Generic Intravenous Levetiracetam Be Used for Acute Repetitive Convulsive Seizure or Status Epilepticus? A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Intravenous levetiracetam (IV LEV) is approved for treatment status epilepticus (SE). However, the drug's high cost must be considered when deciding on a treatment strategy. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of brand-name and generic IV LEV for acute repetitive convulsive seizure (ARCS) or SE.

METHODS

Forty patients aged 18 years or older who had been diagnosed with SE or ARCS were included in this double-blind study. Patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio (via computer-generated code) to receive either brand-name or generic IV LEV. The primary outcomes were seizure control and the number of seizure exacerbations during the 24 h after drug administration, while the secondary outcomes were electroencephalographic (EEG) findings, serious adverse events, and clinical outcome at hospital discharge.

RESULTS

Forty patients were randomly assigned administration with either brand-name IV LEV (10 SE and 10 ARCS patients) or generic IV LEV; 7 SE and 13 ARCS patients). There was no significant difference in patients' baseline characteristics. The seizure control rate was 75% in the brand-name IV LEV group and 65% in the generic IV LEV group (p value: 0.490). Five (25%) patients in the brand-name IV LEV group, and six (30%) patients in the generic IV LEV group developed seizure exacerbations within 24 h after drug administration (p value 0.723). There were no reports of drug-related adverse events. Two of the patients taking brand-name IV LEV and one taking the generic IV LEV died (p value > 0.999).

CONCLUSION

Treatment with the generic IV LEV had comparable outcomes with brand-name IV LEV. The generic IV LEV may be an alternative medication for the treatment of SE and ARCS to reduce treatment costs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

TCTR20190513001.

FUNDING

Great Eastern Drug Company.

Levetiracetam versus phenytoin in children with status epilepticus

Background:

To compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous levetiracetam and phenytoin in status epilepticus.

Methodology:

A prospective, randomized controlled, nonblinded study was conducted in children 1 month to 12 years of age with active seizure and with status epilepticus. A total of 104 children were randomly allocated to either group 1 (levetiracetam) or group 2 (phenytoin) on the basis of computer-generated random number table. Children already on antiepileptic drugs, very sick children with shock, impending respiratory failure, or head injury, and children hypersensitive to phenytoin or levetiracetam were excluded. Data analysis was done by IBM SPSS statistics.

Results:

The mean age was 4.09 years with a male preponderance with the most common type of seizure being generalized type (74%). The seizures were controlled in all 104 patients initially within 40 min. Seizure control for 24 h was significantly better in group 1 (96%) when compared with group 2 (59.6%) (P = 0.0001). Minibolus of drug was given in 28.8% in group 1 and 46.2% in group 2 (P = 0.068). The seizure recurrence in groups 1 and 2 in the first hour was 1.9% and 5.8%, respectively (P = 0.61), whereas the recurrence between 1 and 24 h was significantly more in group 1 (34.6%) when compared with group 2 (3.8%) (P = 0.0001). The mean time to control seizure was comparable between both the groups (P = 0.71). There was no significant adverse effect in both the groups.

Conclusion:

Levetiracetam is more effective than phenytoin for seizure control for 24 h in children with status epilepticus, and it is safe and effective as a second-line therapy.

Intravenous levetiracetam in critically ill children

Background:

To report the effectiveness and safety of intravenous (IV) levetiracetam (LEV) in the treatment of critically ill children with acute repetitive seizures and status epilepticus (SE) in a children's hospital.

Materials and Methods:

We retrospectively analyzed data from children treated with IV LEV.

Results:

The mean age of the 108 children was 69.39 ± 46.14 months (1-192 months). There were 58 (53.1%) males and 50 (46.8%) females. LEV load dose was 28.33 ± 4.60 mg/kg/dose (10-40 mg/kg). Out of these 108 patients, LEV terminated seizures in 79 (73.1%). No serious adverse effects were observed but agitation and aggression were developed in two patients, and mild erythematous rash and urticaria developed in one patient.

Conclusion:

Antiepileptic treatment of critically ill children with IV LEV seems to be effective and safe. Further study is needed to elucidate the role of IV LEV in critically ill children.