Tolerability and dosing experience of intravenous levetiracetam in children and infants

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

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

Effects of levetiracetam treatment on autonomic nervous system functions in pediatric epilepsy patients

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the effects of levetiracetam (LEV) treatment on cardiac rhythm and heart rate variability.

METHODS

The study included two groups of patients diagnosed with non-lesional epilepsy who had not yet been treated and who presented to the outpatient pediatric neurology clinic at Van Training and Research Hospital, Van, Turkey, between 2019 and 2020. The heart rate variability (HRV) of 47 patients in the first group, before and at the 3rd month of treatment, and intravenous (IV) LEV loading in 13 patients in the second group was evaluated by Holter electrocardiography (ECG).

RESULTS

It was determined that the values of triangular index, standard deviation of the RR intervals over a 24-hour period (SDNN), standard deviation of all 5-minute mean RR intervals (SDANN), mean of standard deviations of all normal RR intervals (SDNNI), the percentage of RR intervals with >50-millisecond variation (PNN50), and the square root of mean squared differences of successive RR intervals (RMSSD). HRV of 47 patients under LEV treatment significantly increased in the 3rd month of treatment compared to baseline (p < 0.05). No difference was found in HRV between the intravenous loading and the control group (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that the sympathovagal balance before treatment in the patient group is in favor of the sympathetic nervous system and that the sympathovagal imbalance improves after treatment. Our results show that LEV monotherapy and loading have no negative effect on HRV and potential cardiac arrhythmia risk in children with epilepsy.

Levetiracetam as an alternative to phenytoin for second-line emergency treatment of children with convulsive status epilepticus: the EcLiPSE RCT

BACKGROUND

Convulsive status epilepticus is the most common neurological emergency in children. Its management is important to avoid or minimise neurological morbidity and death. The current first-choice second-line drug is phenytoin (Epanutin, Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA), for which there is no robust scientific evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether phenytoin or levetiracetam (Keppra, UCB Pharma, Brussels, Belgium) is the more clinically effective intravenous second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus and to help better inform its management.

DESIGN

A multicentre parallel-group randomised open-label superiority trial with a nested mixed-method study to assess recruitment and research without prior consent.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from 30 paediatric emergency departments in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants aged 6 months to 17 years 11 months, who were presenting with convulsive status epilepticus and were failing to respond to first-line treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

Intravenous levetiracetam (40 mg/kg) or intravenous phenytoin (20 mg/kg).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome - time from randomisation to cessation of all visible signs of convulsive status epilepticus. Secondary outcomes - further anticonvulsants to manage the convulsive status epilepticus after the initial agent, the need for rapid sequence induction owing to ongoing convulsive status epilepticus, admission to critical care and serious adverse reactions.

RESULTS

Between 17 July 2015 and 7 April 2018, 286 participants were randomised, treated and consented. A total of 152 participants were allocated to receive levetiracetam and 134 participants to receive phenytoin. Convulsive status epilepticus was terminated in 106 (70%) participants who were allocated to levetiracetam and 86 (64%) participants who were allocated to phenytoin. Median time from randomisation to convulsive status epilepticus cessation was 35 (interquartile range 20-not assessable) minutes in the levetiracetam group and 45 (interquartile range 24-not assessable) minutes in the phenytoin group (hazard ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.60; p = 0.2). Results were robust to prespecified sensitivity analyses, including time from treatment commencement to convulsive status epilepticus termination and competing risks. One phenytoin-treated participant experienced serious adverse reactions.

LIMITATIONS

First, this was an open-label trial. A blinded design was considered too complex, in part because of the markedly different infusion rates of the two drugs. Second, there was subjectivity in the assessment of 'cessation of all signs of continuous, rhythmic clonic activity' as the primary outcome, rather than fixed time points to assess convulsive status epilepticus termination. However, site training included simulated demonstration of seizure cessation. Third, the time point of randomisation resulted in convulsive status epilepticus termination prior to administration of trial treatment in some cases. This affected both treatment arms equally and had been prespecified at the design stage. Last, safety measures were a secondary outcome, but the trial was not powered to demonstrate difference in serious adverse reactions between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Levetiracetam was not statistically superior to phenytoin in convulsive status epilepticus termination rate, time taken to terminate convulsive status epilepticus or frequency of serious adverse reactions. The results suggest that it may be an alternative to phenytoin in the second-line management of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus. Simple trial design, bespoke site training and effective leadership were found to facilitate practitioner commitment to the trial and its success. We provide a framework to optimise recruitment discussions in paediatric emergency medicine trials.

FUTURE WORK

Future work should include a meta-analysis of published studies and the possible sequential use of levetiracetam and phenytoin or sodium valproate in the second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22567894 and European Clinical Trials Database EudraCT number 2014-002188-13.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 58. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Efficacy, Safety, and Economics of Intravenous Levetiracetam for Status Epilepticus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

To evaluate efficacy, safety, and economics profiles of intravenous levetiracetam (LEV) for status epilepticus (SE).

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, and OpenGrey.eu for eligible studies published from inception to June 12^th 2019. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effect model to calculate odds ratio (OR) of included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with RevMan 5.3 software.

Results

A total of 478 studies were obtained. Five systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses, 9 RCTs, 1 non-randomized trial, and 27 case series/reports and 1 economic study met the inclusion criteria. Five SRs indicated no statistically significant difference in rates of seizure cessation when LEV was compared with lorazepam (LOR), phenytoin (PHT), or valproate (VPA). Pooled results of included RCTs indicated no statistically significant difference in seizure cessation when LEV was compared with LOR [OR = 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 2.92], PHT (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.27), and VPA (OR = 1.47, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.67); and no statistically significant difference in seizure freedom within 24 h compared with LOR [OR = 1.83, 95% CI 0.57 to 5.90] and PHT (OR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.87). Meanwhile, LEV did not increase the risk of mortality during hospitalization compared with LOR (OR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.39), PHT (OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.10), VPA (OR = 1.28, 95% CI 0.32 to 5.07), and placebo (plus clonazepam, OR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.38). LEV had lower need for artificial ventilation (OR = 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.92) and a lower risk of hypotension (OR = 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.84) compared to LOR. A trend of lower risk of hypotension and higher risk of agitation was found when LEV was compared with PHT. Case series and case report studies indicated psychiatric and behavioral adverse events of LEV. Cost-effectiveness evaluations indicated LEV as the most cost-effective non-benzodiazepines anti-epileptic drug (AED).

Conclusions

LEV has a similar efficacy as LOR, PHT, and VPA for SE, but a lower need for ventilator assistance and risk of hypotension, thus can be used as a second-line treatment for SE. However, more well-conducted studies to confirm the role of intravenous LEV for SE are still needed.

Levetiracetam versus phenytoin for second-line treatment of convulsive status epilepticus in children (ConSEPT): an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Phenytoin is the current standard of care for second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus after failure of first-line benzodiazepines, but is only effective in 60% of cases and is associated with considerable adverse effects. A newer anticonvulsant, levetiracetam, can be given more quickly, is potentially more efficacious, and has a more tolerable adverse effect profile. We aimed to determine whether phenytoin or levetiracetam is the superior second-line treatment for paediatric convulsive status epilepticus.

METHODS

ConSEPT was an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial conducted in 13 emergency departments in Australia and New Zealand. Children aged between 3 months and 16 years, with convulsive status epilepticus that failed first-line benzodiazepine treatment, were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated permuted block (block sizes 2 and 4) randomisation sequence, stratified by site and age (≤5 years, >5 years), to receive 20 mg/kg phenytoin (intravenous or intraosseous infusion over 20 min) or 40 mg/kg levetiracetam (intravenous or intraosseous infusion over 5 min). The primary outcome was clinical cessation of seizure activity 5 min after the completion of infusion of the study drug. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12615000129583.

FINDINGS

Between March 19, 2015, and Nov 29, 2017, 639 children presented to participating emergency departments with convulsive status epilepticus; 127 were missed, and 278 did not meet eligibility criteria. The parents of one child declined to give consent, leaving 233 children (114 assigned to phenytoin and 119 assigned to levetiracetam) in the intention-to-treat population. Clinical cessation of seizure activity 5 min after completion of infusion of study drug occurred in 68 (60%) patients in the phenytoin group and 60 (50%) patients in the levetiracetam group (risk difference -9·2% [95% CI -21·9 to 3·5]; p=0·16). One participant in the phenytoin group died at 27 days because of haemorrhagic encephalitis; this death was not thought to be due to the study drug. There were no other serious adverse events.

INTERPRETATION

Levetiracetam is not superior to phenytoin for second-line management of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus.

FUNDING

Health Research Council of New Zealand, A+ Trust, Emergency Medicine Foundation, Townsville Hospital Private Practice Fund, Eric Ormond Baker Charitable Fund, and Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation.

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.

A multicentre randomised controlled trial of levetiracetam versus phenytoin for convulsive status epilepticus in children (protocol): Convulsive Status Epilepticus Paediatric Trial (ConSEPT) - a PREDICT study

Background

Convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) is the most common life-threatening childhood neurological emergency. Despite this, there is a lack of high quality evidence supporting medication use after first line benzodiazepines, with current treatment protocols based solely on non-experimental evidence and expert opinion. The current standard of care, phenytoin, is only 60% effective, and associated with considerable adverse effects. A newer anti-convulsant, levetiracetam, can be given faster, is potentially more efficacious, with a more tolerable side effect profile. The primary aim of the study presented in this protocol is to determine whether intravenous (IV) levetiracetam or IV phenytoin is the better second line treatment for the emergency management of CSE in children.

Methods/Design

200 children aged between 3 months and 16 years presenting to 13 emergency departments in Australia and New Zealand with CSE, that has failed to stop with first line benzodiazepines, will be enrolled into this multicentre open randomised controlled trial. Participants will be randomised to 40 mg/kg IV levetiracetam infusion over 5 min or 20 mg/kg IV phenytoin infusion over 20 min. The primary outcome for the study is clinical cessation of seizure activity five minutes following the completion of the infusion of the study medication. Blinded confirmation of the primary outcome will occur with the primary outcome assessment being video recorded and assessed by a primary outcome assessment team blinded to treatment allocation. Secondary outcomes include: Clinical cessation of seizure activity at two hours; Time to clinical seizure cessation; Need for rapid sequence induction; Intensive care unit (ICU) admission; Serious adverse events; Length of Hospital/ICU stay; Health care costs; Seizure status/death at one-month post discharge.

Discussion

This paper presents the background, rationale, and design for a randomised controlled trial comparing levetiracetam to phenytoin in children presenting with CSE in whom benzodiazepines have failed. This study will provide the first high quality evidence for management of paediatric CSE post first-line benzodiazepines.

Trial registration

Prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12615000129583 (11/2/2015). UTN U1111–1144-5272. ConSEPT protocol version 4 (12/12/2014).

Emergency treatment with levetiracetam or phenytoin in status epilepticus in children-the EcLiPSE study: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) is the most common life-threatening neurological emergency in childhood. These children are also at risk of significant morbidity, with acute and chronic impact on the family and the health and social care systems. The current recommended first-choice, second-line treatment in children aged 6 months and above is intravenous phenytoin (fosphenytoin in the USA), although there is a lack of evidence for its use and it is associated with significant side effects. Emerging evidence suggests that intravenous levetiracetam may be effective as a second-line agent for CSE, and fewer adverse effects have been described. This trial therefore aims to determine whether intravenous phenytoin or levetiracetam is more effective, and safer, in treating childhood CSE.

Methods/design

This is a phase IV, multi-centre, parallel group, randomised controlled, open-label trial. Following treatment for CSE with first-line treatment, children with ongoing seizures are randomised to receive either phenytoin (20 mg/kg, maximum 2 g) or levetiracetam (40 mg/kg, maximum 2.5 g) intravenously. The primary outcome measure is the cessation of all visible signs of CSE as determined by the treating clinician. Secondary outcome measures include the need for further anti-seizure medications or rapid sequence induction for ongoing CSE, admission to critical care areas, and serious adverse reactions. Patients are recruited without prior consent, with deferred consent sought at an appropriate time for the family. The primary analysis will be by intention-to-treat. The primary outcome is a time to event outcome and a sample size of 140 participants in each group will have 80% power to detect an increase in CSE cessation rates from 60% to 75%. Our total sample size of 308 randomised and treated participants will allow for 10% loss to follow-up.

Discussion

This clinical trial will determine whether phenytoin or levetiracetam is more effective as an intravenous second-line agent for CSE, and provide evidence for management recommendations. In addition, this trial will also provide data on which of these therapies is safer in this setting.

Trial registration

ISRCTN identifier, ISRCTN22567894. Registered on 27 August 2015

EudraCT identifier, 2014-002188-13. Registered on 21 May 2014

NIHR HTA Grant: 12/127/134

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2010-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Efficacy and safety of IV levetiracetam in children with acute repetitive seizures

BACKGROUND

Levetiracetam has been proven to be effective in both partial and generalized seizures in children. However, few studies have reported its efficacy in the treatment of acute repetitive seizures. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam in children with acute repetitive seizures.

METHODS

The medical records of children from the age of 1 month-18 years who received levetiracetam because of acute repetitive seizures in the pediatric intensive care unit between 2010 and 2013 were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Of the 133 patients, levetiracetam terminated seizures in 104 (78.2%). Side effects such as agitation and aggression were observed in three patients (2.2%). The likelihood of treatment failure was increased by four times by younger age at seizure onset; by six times in the individuals with neurological abnormalities; and by 22 times in the patients with West syndrome. The patients who used levetiracetam as the first treatment option for acute repetitive seizures had a longer duration of epilepsy, a higher rate of neurological abnormality, and a higher proportion of medically resistant epilepsy compared with the individuals who used levetiracetam as an add-on treatment to the other intravenous antiepileptic drugs. However, no differences were detected between these two groups in terms of treatment response.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous levetiracetam appears to be effective and safe in the treatment of acute repetitive seizures. Randomized clinical trials are needed to determine whether intravenous levetiracetam may replace other antiepileptic drugs as the first-line therapy in the management of acute repetitive seizures.

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.

Safety and efficacy of levetiracetam for the treatment of partial onset seizures in children from one month of age

Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder in the pediatric population, affecting up to one percent of children, and for which the mainstay of treatment is anticonvulsant medication. Despite the frequent use of anticonvulsant drugs, remarkably little is known about the safety and efficacy of most of these medications in the pediatric epilepsy population. Of 34 anticonvulsants currently approved for use by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), only 13 have been approved for use in children. Although infants and young children are disproportionately affected by epilepsy, there are currently only three anticonvulsant medications that have been specifically evaluated and approved for use in children younger than 2 years of age. In 2012, the FDA approved levetiracetam as an adjunctive treatment for partial onset seizures in infants and children from one month of age. Here we review the available data on levetiracetam in the pediatric epilepsy population. We first discuss the pharmacological profile of levetiracetam, including its mechanism of action, formulations and dosing, and pharmacokinetics in children. We then review the available efficacy, safety, and tolerability data in children from one month of age with partial onset seizures. We conclude that the current data leading to the approval of levetiracetam for use in infants and children with partial onset seizures is encouraging, although more work needs to be done before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the efficacy of levetiracetam across different pediatric age groups.

Use of intravenous levetiracetam for management of acute seizures in neonates

Antiepileptic drugs used for the treatment of neonatal seizures have limited efficacy and undesirable side effects, leading to increased off-label use in neonates. Intravenous levetiracetam became available in August 2006 for use in patients above 16 years of age. Insufficient data are available about the efficacy and safety of intravenous levetiracetam in neonates. Data captured from our institution's electronic medical records were retrospectively analyzed for neonates treated with intravenous levetiracetam between January 2007 and December 2009. Data were acquired by reviewing our electronic medical records. Twenty-two patients received a levetiracetam load of 10-50 mg/kg for neonatal seizures. Nineteen of 22 patients (86%) demonstrated immediate seizure cessation at 1 hour. Seven of 22 patients (32%) achieved complete seizure cessation after administration of the loading dose, 14 (64%) achieved seizure cessation by 24 hours, 19 (86%) by 48 hours, and all 22 (100%) by 72 hours. No serious side effects were evident. Nineteen patients (86%) were discharged on oral levetiracetam, and only two patients (9%) were discharged with an additional oral antiepileptic drug. Intravenous levetiracetam can be used as monotherapy and adjunctively in acute seizure management during the neonatal period.

Prospective, randomized, single-blinded comparative trial of intravenous levetiracetam versus phenytoin for seizure prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Anti-epileptic drugs are commonly used for seizure prophylaxis after neurological injury. We performed a study comparing intravenous (IV) levetiracetam (LEV) to IV phenytoin (PHT) for seizure prophylaxis after neurological injury.

METHODS

In this prospective, single-center, randomized, single-blinded comparative trial of LEV versus PHT (2:1 ratio) in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) or subarachnoid hemorrhage (NCT00618436) patients received IV load with either LEV or fosphenytoin followed by standard IV doses of LEV or PHT. Doses were adjusted to maintain therapeutic serum PHT concentrations or if patients had seizures. Continuous EEG (cEEG) monitoring was performed for the initial 72 h; outcome data were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 52 patients were randomized (LEV = 34; PHT = 18); 89% with sTBI. When controlling for baseline severity, LEV patients experienced better long-term outcomes than those on PHT; the Disability Rating Scale score was lower at 3 months (P = 0.042) and the Glasgow Outcomes Scale score was higher at 6 months (P = 0.039). There were no differences between groups in seizure occurrence during cEEG (LEV 5/34 vs. PHT 3/18; P = 1.0) or at 6 months (LEV 1/20 vs. PHT 0/14; P = 1.0), mortality (LEV 14/34 vs. PHT 4/18; P = 0.227). There were no differences in side effects between groups (all P > 0.15) except for a lower frequency of worsened neurological status (P = 0.024), and gastrointestinal problems (P = 0.043) in LEV-treated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study of LEV versus PHT for seizure prevention in the NSICU showed improved long-term outcomes of LEV-treated patients vis-à-vis PHT-treated patients. LEV appears to be an alternative to PHT for seizure prophylaxis in this setting.

Levetiracetam in nonconvulsive status epilepticus in a child with Angelman syndrome

Children with Angelman syndrome have an increased risk of developing a nonconvulsive status epilepticus. Although the urgency to treat nonconvulsive status epilepticus depends on the underlying illness, most clinicians and authors agree that treatment should be focused to rapidly terminate this condition. Until now, the use of levetiracetam to treat nonconvulsive status epilepticus in children is based only on some case reports. Our case further supports this treatment regime for a subgroup of children with a special risk of nonconvulsive status epilepticus and developmental delay.

Rapid infusion of a loading dose of intravenous levetiracetam with minimal dilution: a safety study

Intravenous antiepileptic drugs are required in patients needing urgent treatment or unable to take oral medication. The safety of intravenous levetiracetam has been established in prospective studies of adult epilepsy and healthy participants. The authors performed a prospective, single-center study to evaluate the safety of a rapid loading dose of intravenous levetiracetam. Patients were divided into 3 equal dosing groups (N = 15 each): 20, 40, and 60 mg/kg (corresponding to maximum doses of 1, 2, and 3 g). Electrocardiogram and safety assessment were performed during the infusion. Ages were 4 to 32 years. Postinfusion serum levetiracetam concentrations were 14 to 189 microg/mL. There were no significant changes in blood pressure, no local infusion site reactions, and no electrocardiogram abnormalities. The authors concluded that high serum levels of parenteral levetiracetam can be achieved rapidly and safely, in a small infusion volume. This finding has important implications for the treatment of status epilepticus.