Intravenous sodium valproate in mainland China for the treatment of diazepam refractory convulsive status epilepticus

Intramuscular Versus Intravenous Treatment of Status Epilepticus: A Systematic Review

Status epilepticus is a neurological emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality with fatal outcomes if not treated well. The goal of this study was to compare the intramuscular and intravenous treatment of individuals with status epilepticus. A search was performed on Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for articles published in the English language in peer-reviewed publications up to March 1, 2023. Studies were included if the treatment of status epileptics was compared either directly or indirectly between intramuscular and intravenous methods. In addition, relevant papers were manually screened for in the reference lists of the included studies. Non-duplicate articles were identified. Finally, five articles were included in the analysis, of which four were randomized controlled trials and one was a retrospective cohort study. The intramuscular midazolam group's time until the first seizure stopped was significantly shorter than the intravenous diazepam group's time (7.8 versus 11.2 minutes, respectively; p = 0.047). Moreover, the percentage of patients admitted was significantly lower in the intramuscular group than in the intravenous group (p = 0.01), but the lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and the hospital did not differ significantly between the groups. Regarding seizure recurrence, the intramuscular group had fewer incidences of recurrent seizures. Finally, there were no appreciable differences in safety outcomes between the two treatment arms. During the analysis, different outcomes reported after the use of intramuscular and intravenous treatments in managing patients with status epilepticus were categorized. This categorization led to a clear view of the efficacy and safety of intramuscular versus intravenous treatments in managing status epilepticus patients. The information at hand indicates that intramuscular therapy is just as successful as intravenous therapy in treating people with status epilepticus. The availability, adverse effect profile, logistics of administration, cost, and whether it is included in hospital formularies are some of the factors to be taken into consideration when choosing the drug administration technique.

Super-Refractory Status Epilepticus: Prognosis and Recent Advances in Management

Super-refractory status epilepticus (SRSE) is a life-threatening neurological emergency with high morbidity and mortality. It is defined as “status epilepticus (SE) that continues or recurs 24 hours or more after the onset of anesthesia, including those cases in which SE recurs on the reduction or withdrawal of anesthesia.” This condition is resistant to normal protocols used in the treatment of status epilepticus and exposes patients to increased risks of neuronal death, neuronal injury, and disruption of neuronal networks if not treated in a timely manner. It is mainly seen in patients with severe acute onset brain injury or presentation of new-onset refractory status epilepticus (NORSE). The mortality, neurological deficits, and functional impairments are significant depending on the duration of status epilepticus and the resultant brain damage. Research is underway to find the cure for this devastating neurological condition. In this review, we will discuss the wide range of therapies used in the management of SRSE, provide suggestions regarding its treatment, and comment on future directions. The therapies evaluated include traditional and alternative anesthetic agents with antiepileptic agents. The other emerging therapies include hypothermia, steroids, immunosuppressive agents, electrical and magnetic stimulation therapies, emergent respective epilepsy surgery, the ketogenic diet, pyridoxine infusion, cerebrospinal fluid drainage, and magnesium infusion. To date, there is a lack of robust published data regarding the safety and effectiveness of various therapies, and there continues to be a need for large randomized multicenter trials comparing newer therapies to treat this refractory condition.

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

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

Meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness of second-line antiepileptic drugs for status epilepticus

Objective

Compare the cost and effectiveness of nonbenzodiazepine antiepileptic drugs (non-BZD AEDs) for treatment of BZD-resistant convulsive status epilepticus (SE).

Methods

Decision analysis model populated with effectiveness data from a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature, and cost data from publicly available prices. The primary outcome was cost per seizure stopped ($/SS). Sensitivity analyses evaluated the robustness of the results across a wide variation of the input parameters.

Results

We included 24 studies with 1,185 SE episodes. The most effective non-BZD AED was phenobarbital (PB) with a probability of SS of 0.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69–0.88), followed by valproate (VPA) (0.71 [95% CI: 0.61–0.79]), lacosamide (0.66 [95% CI: 0.51–0.79]), levetiracetam (LEV) (0.62 [95% CI: 0.5–0.73]), and phenytoin/fosphenytoin (PHT) (0.53 [95% CI: 0.39–0.67]). In pairwise comparisons, PB was more effective than PHT (p = 0.002), VPA was more effective than PHT (p = 0.043), and PB was more effective than LEV (p = 0.018). The most cost-effective non-BZD AED was LEV (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: $18.55/SS), followed by VPA (ICER: $94.44/SS), and lastly PB (ICER: $847.22/SS). PHT and lacosamide were not cost-effective compared to the other options. Sensitivity analyses showed marked overlap in cost-effectiveness, but PHT was consistently less cost-effective than LEV, VPA, and PB.

Conclusion

VPA and PB were more effective than PHT for SE. There is substantial overlap in the cost-effectiveness of non-BZD AEDs for SE, but available evidence does not support the preeminence of PHT, neither in terms of effectiveness nor in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Updates in Refractory Status Epilepticus

Refractory status epilepticus is defined as persistent seizures despite appropriate use of two intravenous medications, one of which is a benzodiazepine. It can be seen in up to 40% of cases of status epilepticus with an acute symptomatic etiology as the most likely cause. New-onset refractory status epilepticus (NORSE) is a recently coined term for refractory status epilepticus where no apparent cause is found after initial testing. A large proportion of NORSE cases are eventually found to have an autoimmune etiology needing immunomodulatory treatment. Management of refractory status epilepticus involves treatment of an underlying etiology in addition to intravenous anesthetics and antiepileptic drugs. Alternative treatment options including diet therapies, electroconvulsive therapy, and surgical resection in case of a focal lesion should be considered. Short-term and long-term outcomes tend to be poor with significant morbidity and mortality with only one-third of patients reaching baseline neurological status.

Direct and indirect comparison meta-analysis of levetiracetam versus phenytoin or valproate for convulsive status epilepticus

AIM

The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of published studies to directly compare intravenous (IV) levetiracetam (LEV) with IV phenytoin (PHT) or IV valproate (VPA) as second-line treatment of status epilepticus (SE), to indirectly compare intravenous IV LEV with IV VPA using common reference-based indirect comparison meta-analysis, and to verify whether results of indirect comparisons are consistent with results of head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) directly comparing IV LEV with IV VPA.

METHODS

Random-effects Mantel-Haenszel meta-analyses to obtain odds ratios (ORs) for efficacy and safety of LEV versus VPA and LEV or VPA versus PHT were used. Adjusted indirect comparisons between LEV and VPA were used.

RESULTS

Two RCTs comparing LEV with PHT (144 episodes of SE) and 3 RCTs comparing VPA with PHT (227 episodes of SE) were included. Direct comparisons showed no difference in clinical seizure cessation, neither between VPA and PHT (OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.57 to 2.03) nor between LEV and PHT (OR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.50 to 2.79). Indirect comparisons showed no difference between LEV and VPA for clinical seizure cessation (OR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.45 to 2.97). Results of indirect comparisons are consistent with results of a recent RCT directly comparing LEV with VPA.

CONCLUSION

The absence of a statistically significant difference in direct and indirect comparisons is due to the lack of sufficient statistical power to detect a difference. Conducting a RCT that has not enough people to detect a clinically important difference or to estimate an effect with sufficient precision can be regarded a waste of time and resources and may raise several ethical concerns, especially in RCT on SE.

Treatment of Generalized Convulsive Status Epilepticus in Pediatric Patients

Generalized convulsive status epilepticus (GCSE) is one of the most common neurologic emergencies and can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality if not treated promptly and aggressively. Management of GCSE is staged and generally involves the use of life support measures, identification and management of underlying causes, and rapid initiation of anticonvulsants. The purpose of this article is to review and evaluate published reports regarding the treatment of impending, established, refractory, and super-refractory GCSE in pediatric patients.

Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with seizures

This clinical policy from the American College of Emergency Physicians is the revision of a 2004 policy on critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients with seizures in the emergency department. A writing subcommittee reviewed the literature to derive evidence-based recommendations to help clinicians answer the following critical questions: (1) In patients with a first generalized convulsive seizure who have returned to their baseline clinical status, should antiepileptic therapy be initiated in the emergency department to prevent additional seizures? (2) In patients with a first unprovoked seizure who have returned to their baseline clinical status in the emergency department, should the patient be admitted to the hospital to prevent adverse events? (3) In patients with a known seizure disorder in which resuming their antiepileptic medication in the emergency department is deemed appropriate, does the route of administration impact recurrence of seizures? (4) In emergency department patients with generalized convulsive status epilepticus who continue to have seizures despite receiving optimal dosing of a benzodiazepine, which agent or agents should be administered next to terminate seizures? A literature search was performed, the evidence was graded, and recommendations were given based on the strength of the available data in the medical literature.

Efficacy and safety of intravenous valproate for status epilepticus: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The effectiveness of valproate (VPA) in the treatment of focal and generalized epilepsies is well established. The drug has a wide spectrum of action, good tolerability, and has been available as an injectable formulation since 1993. Despite the lack of class A evidence, it has been used extensively in various forms of status epilepticus (SE).

AIM

Our aim was to present a systematic review of data from randomized and non-randomized controlled trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous VPA for the treatment of SE.

METHODS

Data sources included MEDLINE, back tracing of references in pertinent studies, and contact with the manufacturer of VPA (Sanofi-Aventis).

RESULTS

Overall, the search strategy yielded 433 results (425 MEDLINE, seven congress abstracts, one unpublished study); after excluding duplicate publications and case reports, 30 studies were identified (the earliest was published in 1993, the most recent in 2012); ten were controlled (six randomized controlled trials, four non-randomized controlled studies), and 20 uncontrolled trials (eight prospective observational studies, 12 retrospective case series). The cumulative literature describes the experiences of 860 patients with various forms of SE treated with intravenous VPA. The overall response rate to abrogate SE was 70.9% (601/848; 95% confidence interval [CI] 67.8-73.9). Response rates to intravenous VPA were better in children than in adults and did not differ between the SE types. The most commonly reported effective doses were between 15 and 45 mg/kg in bolus (6 mg/kg/min) followed by 1-3 mg/kg/h infusion. Safety studies of intravenous VPA administration in patients with SE showed a low incidence of adverse events overall (<10%), mainly dizziness, thrombocytopenia, and mild hypotension, which was independent of infusion rates. Of note, good cardiovascular and respiratory tolerability was observed in these studies, even at high doses and fast infusion rates (up to 30 mg/kg at 10 mg/kg/min), despite multiple morbidities or other antiepileptic drugs. The most serious concern relates to the possibility of acute encephalopathy, sometimes related to hepatic abnormalities or hyperammonemia.

CONCLUSIONS

The published experience is consistent with VPA being a safe and effective therapeutic option for patients with established SE who have previously failed conventional first-line treatment with benzodiazepines, but high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to inform clinicians on its comparative effectiveness in SE.

The relative effectiveness of five antiepileptic drugs in treatment of benzodiazepine-resistant convulsive status epilepticus: a meta-analysis of published studies

PURPOSE

Systematic evaluation of published evidence-base of the efficacy of five antiepileptic drugs - lacosamide, levetiracetam, valproate, phenytoin and phenobarbital - in convulsive benzodiazepine-resistant status epilepticus.

METHODS

Data sources included electronic databases, personal communication, and back tracing of references in pertinent studies. These were prospective and retrospective human studies presenting original data for participants with convulsive benzodiazepine-resistant status epilepticus. Interventions were intravenous lacosamide, levetiracetam, phenobarbital, phenytoin and valproate. Outcome measured is clinically detectable cessation of seizure activity. Level-of-evidence was assessed according to Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine and The Cochrane Collaboration's Tool for Assessment of Risk. Twenty seven studies (798 cases of convulsive status epilepticus) were identified and 22 included in a meta-analysis. Random-effects analysis of dichotomous outcome of a single group estimate (proportion), with inverse variance weighting, was implemented. Several sources of clinical and methodological heterogeneity were identified.

RESULTS

Efficacy of levetiracetam was 68.5% (95% CI: 56.2-78.7%), phenobarbital 73.6% (95% CI: 58.3-84.8%), phenytoin 50.2% (95% CI: 34.2-66.1%) and valproate 75.7% (95% CI: 63.7-84.8%). Lacosamide studies were excluded from the meta-analysis due to insufficient data.

CONCLUSION

Valproate, levetiracetam and phenobarbital can all be used as first line therapy in benzodiazepine-resistant status epilepticus. The evidence does not support the first-line use of phenytoin. There is not enough evidence to support the routine use of lacosamide. Randomized controlled trials are urgently needed.

Gaps and opportunities in refractory status epilepticus research in children: a multi-center approach by the Pediatric Status Epilepticus Research Group (pSERG)

PURPOSE

Status epilepticus (SE) is a life-threatening condition that can be refractory to initial treatment. Randomized controlled studies to guide treatment choices, especially beyond first-line drugs, are not available. This report summarizes the evidence that guides the management of refractory convulsive SE (RCSE) in children, defines gaps in our clinical knowledge and describes the development and works of the 'pediatric Status Epilepticus Research Group' (pSERG).

METHODS

A literature review was performed to evaluate current gaps in the pediatric SE and RCSE literature. In person and online meetings helped to develop and expand the pSERG network.

RESULTS

The care of pediatric RCSE is largely based on extrapolations of limited evidence derived from adult literature and supplemented with case reports and case series in children. No comparative effectiveness trials have been performed in the pediatric population. Gaps in knowledge include risk factors for SE, biomarkers of SE and RCSE, second- and third-line treatment options, and long-term outcome.

CONCLUSION

The care of children with RCSE is based on limited evidence. In order to address these knowledge gaps, the multicenter pSERG was established to facilitate prospective collection, analysis, and sharing of de-identified data and biological specimens from children with RCSE. These data will allow identification of treatment strategies associated with better outcomes and delineate evidence-based interventions to improve the care of children with SE.

Guidelines for the evaluation and management of status epilepticus

Status epilepticus (SE) treatment strategies vary substantially from one institution to another due to the lack of data to support one treatment over another. To provide guidance for the acute treatment of SE in critically ill patients, the Neurocritical Care Society organized a writing committee to evaluate the literature and develop an evidence-based and expert consensus practice guideline. Literature searches were conducted using PubMed and studies meeting the criteria established by the writing committee were evaluated. Recommendations were developed based on the literature using standardized assessment methods from the American Heart Association and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation systems, as well as expert opinion when sufficient data were lacking.

Efficacy and safety of intravenous sodium valproate versus phenobarbital in controlling convulsive status epilepticus and acute prolonged convulsive seizures in children: a randomised trial

Status epilepticus and acute prolonged seizures are the most commonly occurring neurological emergencies in children. Such events have high morbidity and mortality rates along with poor long-term outcomes, depending on their duration and causes. Therefore, such seizures warrant urgent treatment using appropriate doses of anticonvulsants. Benzodiazepines, phenobarbital, and phenytoin are the most commonly used anticonvulsants for controlling status epilepticus and acute prolonged seizures. However, these medications have several well-known adverse effects. Previous studies on both adults and children have shown the efficacy and safety of rapid infusion of valproate in controlling status epilepticus. However, few well-designed randomised trials have been carried out in children, and there remains a paucity of data regarding intravenous sodium valproate use in children. Therefore, our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of rapid loading of valproate with those of intravenous phenobarbital in children with status epilepticus and acute prolonged seizures. Sixty children (30 in each group) with convulsive status epilepticus and acute prolonged seizures were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either valproate or phenobarbital. The main outcome variable was termination of all convulsive activity within 20 min of starting anticonvulsant infusion. Intravenous rapid loading of valproate was successful in seizure termination in (27/30, 90%) of patients compared to phenobarbital (23/30, 77%) (p = 0.189). Clinically significant adverse effects occurred in 74% patients of the phenobarbital group and 24% patients of the valproate group (p < 0.001). In conclusion, rapid loading of valproate is effective and safe in controlling convulsive status epilepticus and acute prolonged convulsive seizures in children. Intravenous valproate should be considered as a suitable choice for terminating status epilepticus and acute prolonged seizures in children.

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials on the theraputic effect of intravenous sodium valproate in status epilepticus

We performed this systematic review to determine whether intravenous sodium valproate was more effective or safer than other drugs in patients with status epilepticus (SE). A literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). From 544 articles screened, 5 were identified as randomized controlled trials and were included for data extraction. The main outcomes were SE controlled and risk of seizure continuation. The meta-analysis was performed with the Random-effect model. The quality of the included studies was evaluated by GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). There was no significant statistics in SE controlled between intravenous sodium valproate and phenytoin. Compared with diazepam, sodium valproate had a statistically significant lower risk of time interval for control of refractory SE (RSE) after having drugs; however, there was no statistically significant difference in SE controlled within 30 min between the two groups. There was no statistically significant difference in cessation from status between intravenous sodium valproate and levetiracetam. Intravenous sodium valprate was as effective as intravenous phenytoin for SE controlled and risk of seizure continuation.

IV Valproate in generalized convulsive status epilepticus: a systematic review

Aim of this review was to evaluate efficacy and safety of intravenous valproate (IV VPA) in the treatment of generalized convulsive status epilepticus (GCSE) in patients of any age, synthesizing available evidences from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs on IV VPA administered in patients (no age restriction) for GCSE at any stage were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies were selected and data independently extracted. Following outcomes were considered: clinical seizure cessation after drug administration, seizure freedom at 24 h, and adverse effects. Outcomes were assessed using standard methods to calculate risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. Five trials met inclusion criteria. Two different comparisons were available (IV VPA versus phenytoin (PHT), IV VPA versus IV Diazepam), but only the former included more than one study with enough information to permit a meta-analysis. Compared with PHT, VPA had statistically lower risk of adverse effects (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12-0.85), with no differences in GCSE cessation after drug administration (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.93-1.84) and in seizure freedom at 24 h (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88-1.06). This review suggests that IV VPA has a better tolerability than PHT in treatment of GCSE, without any statistically significant differences in terms of efficacy. More rigorous RCTs of VPA versus an appropriate comparator, in a well-defined population with a systematic definition of SE, are however required to conclude about efficacy and tolerability of VPA in clinical practice.

Medical treatment of pediatric status epilepticus

Status epilepticus (SE) is a common pediatric neurologic emergency that refers to a prolonged seizure or recurrent seizures without a return to baseline mental status between seizures. Appropriate treatment strategies are necessary to prevent prolonged SE and its associated morbidity and mortality. This review discusses the importance of a rapid and organized management approach, reviews data related to commonly utilized medications including benzodiazepines, phenytoin, phenobarbital, valproate sodium, and levetiracetam, and then provides a sample SE management algorithm.