Randomized-controlled trials of levetiracetam as an adjunctive therapy in epilepsy of multiple seizure types

An Emergency Department Quality Improvement Project for Intravenous Levetiracetam Administration

Background: Levetiracetam is a readily available, safe anticonvulsive medication. It is frequently administered as IV piggyback with a pump, carrier fluid, and tubing. The Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial demonstrated levetiracetam being similarly effective to previously used treatments in doses up to 4500 mg administered over 10 minutes. Objective: We sought to compare usage, cost, and waste of IV piggyback with IV push administration of levetiractam following implementation of an IV push protocol in an academic emergency department. Methods: A three-month review of levetiracetam administration was done following protocol implementation using IV push for initial treatment of benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus. The review quantified the number of IV push vs IV piggyback doses for all indications and evaluated cost of supplies necessary for administration. Results: During the study period, 137 patients received 142 doses of IV levetiracetam. Fifty-one doses (36%) were given as IV push rather than IV piggyback. The majority of doses 116 (82%) were 1000-2000 mg and 11 doses (8%) 3500-4500 mg. Estimated three-month savings with complete transition of IV piggyback to IV push would exceed $6000 just in our ED. The amount of sterile solution carrier fluid was also reduced and IV pump time freed. Conclusion: Implementation of an emergency department IV push levetiracetam protocol resulted in cost savings. Opportunities remain to improve clinical implementation practices. Medication administration represents one crucial target area where healthcare systems can implement policies to reduce waste and commit to climate-smart health care.

Levetiracetam for epilepsy: an evidence map of efficacy, safety and economic profiles

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy, safety and economics of levetiracetam (LEV) for epilepsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, OpenGrey.eu and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for systematic reviews (SRs), meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, case reports and economic studies published from January 2007 to April 2018. We used a bubble plot to graphically display information of included studies and conducted meta-analyses to quantitatively synthesize the evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 14,803 records were obtained. We included 30 SRs/meta-analyses, 34 RCTs, 18 observational studies, 58 case reports and 2 economic studies after the screening process. The included SRs enrolled patients with pediatric epilepsy, epilepsy in pregnancy, focal epilepsy, generalized epilepsy and refractory focal epilepsy. Meta-analysis of the included RCTs indicated that LEV was as effective as carbamazepine (CBZ; treatment for 6 months: 58.9% vs 64.8%, OR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.50-1.16; 12 months: 54.9% vs 55.5%, OR=1.24, 95% CI: 0.79-1.93), oxcarbazepine (57.7% vs 59.8%, OR=1.34, 95% CI: 0.34-5.23), phenobarbital (50.0% vs 50.9%, OR=1.20, 95% CI: 0.51-2.82) and lamotrigine (LTG; 61.5% vs 57.7%, OR=1.22, 95% CI: 0.90-1.66). SRs and observational studies indicated a low malformation rate and intrauterine death rate for pregnant women, as well as low risk of cognitive side effects. But psychiatric and behavioral side effects could not be ruled out. LEV decreased discontinuation due to adverse events compared with CBZ (OR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.41-0.65), while no difference was found when LEV was compared with placebo and LTG. Two cost-effectiveness evaluations for refractory epilepsy with decision-tree model showed US$ 76.18 per seizure-free day gained in Canada and US$ 44 per seizure-free day gained in Korea.

CONCLUSION

LEV is as effective as CBZ, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital and LTG and has an advantage for pregnant women and in cognitive functions. Limited evidence supports its cost-effectiveness.

REGISTERED NUMBER

PROSPERO (No CRD 42017069367).

Evaluation of long-term antiepileptic drug use in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy: Assessment of risk factors for drug resistance and polypharmacy

PURPOSE

To evaluate risk factors for drug resistance and polypharmacy in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy.

METHODS

Patients with temporal lobe epilepsy, treated for more than 5 years, completed questionnaires on antiepileptic drug use and effect. Logistic regression models were used for analysis of risk factors.

RESULTS

Of 135 patients included in the study, 65% were classified as drug resistant and 41% identified as using polypharmacy. Poor effects associated with first-choice antiepileptic drug were reported by 59% of the patients, and 70% reported poor effects of second-line treatment. The most frequently used first-generation antiepileptic drugs had a similar mean effect to those of second-generation. Univariate regression analyses showed a significant association between drug resistance and mesial temporal sclerosis, seizure onset below 18 years, and lack of family history of epilepsy. However, multivariate regression analysis showed no association with any demographic or clinical features. Unsuccessful treatment with the first antiepileptic drug increased the risk of drug resistance by 18 times, and the risk of poor effect from the second antiepileptic drug by 9 times. Disease duration was associated with annual risk for drug resistance of 7% and for polypharmacy of 5%.

CONCLUSIONS

A poor effect from initial pharmacotherapy is the only early risk factor for drug resistance found in this study. Long disease duration increases the risk of drug resistance and polypharmacy. Second-generation antiepileptic drugs provide no additional effect for poor responders to first-generation drugs.

Is the perceived placebo effect comparable between adults and children? A meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

A potential larger perceived placebo effect in children compared with adults could influence the detection of the treatment effect and the extrapolation of the treatment benefit from adults to children. This study aims to explore this potential difference, using a meta-epidemiological approach.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was done to identify trials included in meta-analyses evaluating a drug intervention with separate data for adults and children. The standardized mean change and the proportion of responders (binary outcomes) were used to calculate the perceived placebo effect. A meta-regression analysis was conducted to test for the difference between adults and children of the perceived placebo effect.

RESULTS

For binary outcomes, the perceived placebo effect was significantly more favorable in children compared with adults (β = 0.13; P = 0.001). Parallel group trials (β = -1.83; P < 0.001), subjective outcomes (β = -0.76; P < 0.001), and the disease type significantly influenced the perceived placebo effect.

CONCLUSION

The perceived placebo effect is different between adults and children for binary outcomes. This difference seems to be influenced by the design, the disease, and outcomes. Calibration of new studies for children should consider cautiously the placebo effect in children.

Different treatment benefits were estimated by clinical trials performed in adults compared with those performed in children

OBJECTIVE

Our main objective was to see whether the therapeutic benefit observed in placebo controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is different between adults and children.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched three electronic databases for meta-analyses that included double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs with separate results for adults and children. The selected reviews were classified according to disease and drug used. The heterogeneity of treatment response between adults and children was measured using ratio of odds ratios (RORs).

RESULTS

We selected 89 meta-analyses and calculated RORs for 124 drugs. Heterogeneity in the direction of the treatment effect was observed in one drug and heterogeneity in the quantity of the treatment effect for 13 drugs, indicating significantly different treatment effect in adults when compared with children. RORs were not significantly different from 1 for 110 drugs. For 36 of these drugs, the treatment effect was confirmed in both populations.

CONCLUSION

We found different treatment benefits estimated by clinical trials performed in adults compared with those performed in children for 14 of 124 drugs. Data on dose adjustment and child age groups from RCTs were not adequately reported to investigate their influence on the treatment benefit dissimilarities.

Antiepileptic Drug Treatment in Children with Epilepsy

Most children with new-onset epilepsy achieve seizure freedom with appropriate antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). However, nearly 20 % will continue to have seizures despite AEDs, as either monotherapy or in combination. Despite the growing market of new molecules over the last 20 years, the proportion of drug-resistant epilepsies has not changed. In this review, we report the evidence of efficacy and safety based on phase III randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of AEDs currently used in the paediatric population. We conducted a literature search using the PubMed database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We also analysed the RCTs of newer AEDs whose efficacy in adolescents and adults might suggest possible use in children. Most of the phase III trials on AEDs in children have major methodological limitations that considerably limit meaningful conclusions about comparative efficacy between old and new molecules. Since the efficacy of new drugs has only been reported versus placebo, the commonly held opinion that new and newer AEDs have a better safety profile than old ones does not appear to be supported by evidence. Despite limited solid evidence, pharmacological management has improved over the years as a consequence of increased awareness of some degree of specificity of treatment in relation to different epilepsy syndromes and attention to adverse events. Future research should be directed taking these factors, as well as the diversity of epilepsy, into consideration.