Role of intravenous levetiracetam in acute seizure management of children

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.

The Pharmacokinetics of Crushed Levetiracetam Tablets Administered to Neonates

BACKGROUND

Intravenous phenobarbital remains the first-line therapy in the management of neonatal seizures. Shortages of intravenous phenobarbital in South Africa necessitated the addition of oral levetiracetam as part of management of neonatal seizures.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the pharmacokinetics of crushed immediate-release levetiracetam tablets administered to neonates to terminate seizures.

METHODS

A prospective, observational study of neonates admitted with seizures to Tygerberg Hospital. Participants received crushed levetiracetam (diluted in saline) given orally or via naso-/orogastric tube. At steady-state, pharmacokinetic sampling was performed at pre-dose, 1.5, 2.5 and 4 h post-dose. Maximum concentration (Cmax), time to Cmax (Tmax), trough concentrations (Ctrough) and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC0-12) were calculated using non-compartmental analysis. Seizure termination and safety profiles were documented.

RESULTS

Nineteen participants were grouped into three dosing ranges: (i) 5-15 mg/kg/12-hourly, (ii) 15-25 mg/kg/12-hourly and (iii) 25-35 mg/kg/12-hourly. Range 1 demonstrated AUC0-12 167.0 ± 45.6 h*μg/mL, Cmax 19.19 ± 4.12 μg/mL and Ctrough 9.99 ± 3.86 µg/mL. Range 2, AUC0-12 316.5 ± 108.4 h*μg/mL, Cmax 35.12 ± 10.54 µg/mL and Ctrough 19.25 ± 8.48 µg/mL. Range 3, AUC0-12 290.9 (range 176.14-405.59) h*μg/mL, Cmax 36.11 (range 27.58-44.64) µg/mL and Ctrough 13.03 (2.98-23.07) µg/mL. Seizures terminated in 17/19 (90%) neonates by day 3 and 19/19 (100%) by day 4 post-levetiracetam initiation.

CONCLUSION

Crushed levetiracetam has comparable pharmacokinetics to historical data. No pharmacokinetic differences were observed between oral vs. naso-/orogastric administration. Crushed levetiracetam tablets can be considered for neonates in low-resource settings where intravenous and syrup access is limited.

LAY SUMMARY

Intravenous preparations of antiepileptic medications are used in the management of neonatal seizures. Various established standard of care intravenous antiepileptic medicines are unavailable nationally and internationally due to reasons outside our control. This stock shortage included intravenous phenobarbitone which is the first-line treatment for paediatric seizures. Due to phenobarbital shortage, levetiracetam has been identified by the neonatologists at Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa, as a suitable treatment option due to its efficacy and safety profile. However, intravenous levetiracetam and oral syrup is not registered in South Africa. Levetiracetam tablets are being crushed, dissolved and administered to neonates. There are no data available on the absorption of crushed levetiracetam tablets administered to neonates via a nasogastric tube. This study characterized the pharmacokinetic profile of crushed levetiracetam administered to neonates. We selected neonates receiving levetiracetam from the neonatal wards at Tygerberg hospital and drew blood to analyse the levetiracetam concentrations at 4 different time points. We found that the overall exposure of crushed levetiracetam tablets were comparable to the exposures achieved in historical data of the unaltered formulations. We concluded that crushed levetiracetam tablets can be considered for neonates in low resource settings where intravenous and syrup access is limited.

Comparative Efficacy of IV Phenytoin, IV Valproate, and IV Levetiracetam in Childhood Status Epilepticus

Background and Purpose

Status epilepticus (SE) is a common pediatric neurological emergency that requires immediate and vigorous management. Currently, phenytoin is the most common agent used in the setting of SE following benzodiazepine for further seizure prevention. Other drugs recently introduced for management of SE are valproic acid and levetiracetam.

Methods

This prospective randomized study included 150 pediatric patients admitted as SE. Patients were randomized into three equal groups (50 each) to receive one of the three anticonvulsants in addition to standard treatment. Patients were monitored in hospital regarding their vitals, time to regain consciousness, and seizure recurrence.

Results

At 24 hours seizures were controlled in 44 patients (88%) in phenytoin group, 39 patients (78%) in levetiracetam (LEV) group and 46 patients (92%) in valproate (VAL) group (p=0.115). The mean time to regain consciousness in phenytoin, LEV and VAL groups was 122.3±45.4, 120.8±42.8, and 75.0±30.7 minutes (mean±standard deviation) respectively. Patients in VAL group regained consciousness earlier than both phenytoin and LEV group patients (p<0.0001). At 3 months follow-up, seven (14.28%) out of 49 patients in phenytoin group, 14 (28.57%) out of 49 in LEV group and two (4%) out of 50 patients in VAL group had a seizure recurrence (p=0.0032).

Conclusions

In our study we found that both IV LEV and IV VAL safe and efficacious. The primary outcome, seizure recurrence at 24 hours, did not show a statistically significant difference in three groups (p>0.05). Also, seizure recurrence at 1 week did not reach a statistically significant difference. However, time to regain consciousness and seizure recurrence at 3 months was significantly less in VAL group (p<0.05).

Levetiracetam versus Fosphenytoin in Pediatric Convulsive Status Epilepticus: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous levetiracetam and fosphenytoin in the management of pediatric status epilepticus.

Materials and Methods:

This is an open-labeled randomized controlled trial, conducted at tertiary care pediatric intensive care unit. Subjects between 1 month and 18 years who presented with status epilepticus were enrolled. If seizures persisted even after two doses of lorazepam, participants were randomized to receive either fosphenytoin 30 mg/kg or levetiracetam 30 mg/kg intravenously and followed up till 48h, for seizure recurrence and adverse drug effects. Outcome measures were cessation of seizures within 10–20 min following the end of the infusion of drugs fosphenytoin and levetiracetam, respectively, and no recurrence of seizures was noted over next 48h.

Results:

Subjects in both study groups were comparable in baseline characteristics. Seizures stopped in 54 (93.1%) and 53 (91.4%) in fosphenytoin and levetiracetam groups, respectively (P = 1.000). Seizure recurrence was noted in 13 (22.4%) and 10 (17.2%) patients in fosphenytoin and levetiracetam groups, respectively (n = 0.485). In fosphenytoin group, one (1.7%) child had bradycardia, two (3.4%) children required inotropes, and three (5.2%) children required intubation. In levetiracetam group, none had bradyarrhythmia, required inotropes, and intubation was required in one (1.7%) child each. No statistically significant difference was observed in outcome parameters in two groups.

Conclusion:

Levetiracetam is as efficacious as fosphenytoin in control of pediatric status epilepticus and is associated with lesser side effects.

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 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.

Clinical Effectiveness of Levetiracetam Compared to Fosphenytoin in the Treatment of Benzodiazepine Refractory Convulsive Status Epilepticus

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether levetiracetam is an alternative to fosphenytoin to control Benzodiazepine Refractory Status Epilepticus (BRSE) in pediatric population and also to compare the acute drug related side-effects and ventilation requirement among the both arms of anti-epileptic drug therapy.

METHODS

All consecutive children admitted with BRSE were randomized to group A, who received fosphenytoin at 20 mg/kg phenytoin equivalents (PE) dose and group B who received levetiracetam at 40 mg/kg over 10 min. Time to terminate seizure (response latency) was measured. If seizure remained refractory after 20 min of test drug administration, appropriate drug escalation was made according to pediatrician's discretion. All primary and secondary outcome measures were compared between the two therapeutic groups.

RESULTS

Of 61 children enrolled over 18 mo period, 29 (47.5%) were randomized to group A and 32 (52.5%) were randomized to Group B. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Among 61 children, 58(98%) required Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) admission and among those 5(8.2%) children required mechanical ventilation. Duration of PICU stay, hospital stay, the response latency and seizure recurrence were compared between both groups. Significant number of children received additional anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) in fosphenytoin group [9/29(31%)] compared to levetiracetam group [2/32(7%)] to control seizure.

CONCLUSIONS

Levetiracetam may be an effective alternative to fosphenytoin in management of BRSE in children but multicentric trials with large sample size are needed to substantiate this observation.

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.

Intravenous Levetiracetam for Treatment of Seizures in Term and Preterm Neonates

Context:

Seizures are the most frequent neurological disturbance in the neonatal period, and there are no evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of neonatal seizures. Here we report a study on the use of levetiracetam as second-line therapy in the treatment of seizures in term and preterm neonates.

Aim:

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam for seizures of term and preterm neonates.

Settings and Design:

We retrospectively analyzed data of the patients who had seizures and who were treated with levetiracetam as an add-on therapy to phenobarbital during the neonatal period.

Statistical Analysis:

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software, version 15.0 (SPSS, Chicago, Illinois), was used for statistical analysis. Continuous variables were expressed as mean values and standard deviations.

Results:

Thirty-six patients (8 term and 28 preterm) received levetiracetam. Mean dose of levetiracetam was 31.67 ± 14.83mg/kg/day. Twenty-five of the patients (69.4%) were seizure free with levetiracetam treatment. Electroencephalography recordings improved in 28 (77.8%) of the patients after levetiracetam. No severe adverse effects were observed.

Conclusion:

Our data suggest that levetiracetam may be a safe and effective treatment for neonatal seizures, which are unresponsive to phenobarbital.

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.

IV Levetiracetam versus IV Phenytoin in Childhood Seizures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of IV phenytoin and IV levetiracetam in acute seizures.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Tertiary care hospital, November 2012 to April 2014.

PATIENTS

100 children aged 3-12 yrs of age presenting with acute seizures.

INTERVENTION

Participants randomly received either IV phenytoin 20 mg/kg (n = 50) or IV levetiracetam 30 mg/kg (n = 50). Patients who were had seizures at presentation received IV diazepam prior to these drugs.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary: Absence of seizure activity within next 24 hrs.Secondary: Stopping of clinical seizure activity within 20 mins of first intervention, change in cardiorespiratory parameters, and achievement of therapeutic drug levels.

RESULTS

Two groups were comparable in patient characteristics and seizure type (P > 0.05). Of the 100 children, 3 in levetiracetam and 2 in phenytoin group had a repeat seizure in 24 hrs, efficacy was comparable (94% vs 96%, P > 0.05). Of these, 18 (36%) in phenytoin and 12 (24%) in levetiracetam group received diazepam. Sedation time was 178.80 ±97.534 mins in phenytoin and 145.50 ±105.208 mins in levetiracetam group (P = 0.346). Changes in cardiorespiratory parameters were similar in both groups except a lower diastolic blood pressure with phenytoin (P = 0.023). Therapeutic drug levels were achieved in 38 (76%) children both at 4 and 24 hrs with phenytoin, compared to 50 (100%) and 48 (98%) at 1 and 24 hrs with levetiracetam (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Intravenous levetiracetam and phenytoin have similar efficacy in preventing seizure recurrences for 24 hrs in children 3-12 years presenting with acute seizures.

IV Levetiracetam versus IV Phenytoin in Childhood Seizures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objectives:

To compare the efficacy of IV phenytoin and IV levetiracetam in acute seizures.

Design:

Randomized controlled trial.

Setting:

Tertiary care hospital, November 2012 to April 2014.

Patients:

100 children aged 3–12 yrs of age presenting with acute seizures.

Intervention:

Participants randomly received either IV phenytoin 20 mg/kg (n = 50) or IV levetiracetam 30 mg/kg (n = 50). Patients who were had seizures at presentation received IV diazepam prior to these drugs.

Outcome Measures:

Primary: Absence of seizure activity within next 24 hrs.

Secondary: Stopping of clinical seizure activity within 20 mins of first intervention, change in cardiorespiratory parameters, and achievement of therapeutic drug levels.

Results:

Two groups were comparable in patient characteristics and seizure type (P > 0.05). Of the 100 children, 3 in levetiracetam and 2 in phenytoin group had a repeat seizure in 24 hrs, efficacy was comparable (94% vs 96%, P > 0.05). Of these, 18 (36%) in phenytoin and 12 (24%) in levetiracetam group received diazepam. Sedation time was 178.80 ±97.534 mins in phenytoin and 145.50 ±105.208 mins in levetiracetam group (P = 0.346). Changes in cardiorespiratory parameters were similar in both groups except a lower diastolic blood pressure with phenytoin (P = 0.023). Therapeutic drug levels were achieved in 38 (76%) children both at 4 and 24 hrs with phenytoin, compared to 50 (100%) and 48 (98%) at 1 and 24 hrs with levetiracetam (P < 0.05).

Conclusion:

Intravenous levetiracetam and phenytoin have similar efficacy in preventing seizure recurrences for 24 hrs in children 3–12 years presenting with acute seizures.

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.

A Comparison of Intravenous Levetiracetam and Valproate for the Treatment of Refractory Status Epilepticus in Children

Because of the lack of studies comparing the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam and valproate before the induction of general anesthesia in the treatment of convulsive refractory status epilepticus in children, we aimed to compare the effectiveness of these antiepileptic drugs in patients with convulsive status epilepticus admitted to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit between 2011 and 2014. Forty-six (59%) of the 78 patients received levetiracetam, and 32 (41%) received valproate for the treatment of refractory status epilepticus. The response rate was not significantly different between the 2 groups. Although no adverse event was noted in patients who received levetiracetam, 4 (12.5%) patients in the valproate group experienced liver dysfunction (P = .025). According to our results, levetiracetam and valproate may be used in the treatment of refractory status epilepticus before the induction of general anesthesia. Levetiracetam appears as effective as valproate, and also safer.

Management of Status Epilepticus in Children

Status epilepticus is a common pediatric neurological emergency. Management includes prompt administration of appropriately selected anti-seizure medications, identification and treatment of seizure precipitant(s), as well as identification and management of associated systemic complications. This review discusses the definitions, classification, epidemiology and management of status epilepticus and refractory status epilepticus in children.

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.

Intravenous levetiracetam versus phenobarbital in children with status epilepticus or acute repetitive seizures

Purpose

This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of intravenous (i.v.) phenobarbital (PHB) and i.v. levetiracetam (LEV) in children with status epilepticus (SE) or acute repetitive seizure (ARS).

Methods

The medical records of children (age range, 1 month to 15 years) treated with i.v. PHB or LEV for SE or ARS at our single tertiary center were retrospectively reviewed. Seizure termination was defined as seizure cessation within 30 minutes of infusion completion and no recurrence within 24 hours. Information on the demographic variables, electroencephalography and magnetic resonance imaging findings, previous antiepileptic medications, and adverse events after drug infusion was obtained.

Results

The records of 88 patients with SE or ARS (median age, 18 months; 50 treated with PHB and 38 with LEV) were reviewed. The median initial dose of i.v. PHB was 20 mg/kg (range, 10–20 mg/kg) and that of i.v. LEV was 30 mg/kg (range, 20–30 mg/kg). Seizure termination occurred in 57.9% of patients treated with i.v. LEV (22 of 38) and 74.0% treated with i.v. PHB (37 of 50) (P=0.111). The factor associated with seizure termination was the type of event (SE vs. ARS) in each group. Adverse effects were reported in 13.2% of patients treated with i.v. LEV (5 of 38; n=4, aggressive behavior and n=1, vomiting), and 28.0% of patients treated with i.v. PHB (14 of 50).

Conclusion

Intravenous LEV was efficacious and safe in children with ARS or SE. Further evaluation is needed to determine the most effective and best-tolerated loading dose of i.v. LEV.

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.

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.

Seizures in children treated for a primary brain tumor: risk factors, evaluation and management

ABSTRACT 

Seizures may be a presenting symptom of a brain tumor in childhood or can occur as a complication of treatment or subsequent effect occurring years after completion of therapy. Seizures create a number of therapeutic challenges and represent a significant comorbidity that results in decreased quality of life. Treatment options may be limited by interactions with chemotherapy and/or increased susceptibility to side effects. Moreover, seizures in this patient population may be less responsive to the traditional therapies typically effective for nontumor related epilepsy. While the pathophysiology of tumor-related epilepsy remains unclear, advances are being made in our understanding of the possible mechanisms involved. Newer anticonvulsants and improved diagnostic tools with refined surgical techniques show promise for future treatment approaches.

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.

Newer antiepileptic drugs: evidence based use

Several new antiepileptic drugs (AED's) have been approved by the FDA in the last 2 decades. The newer AED's score over the older ones, in terms of improved tolerability, safety, improved pharmacokinetics and lower drug-drug interactions. However, efficacy may not be significantly higher. This article reviews the newer antiepileptics approved in the pediatric age group and the evidence for or against their clinical use.

Effectiveness of intravenous levetiracetam as an adjunctive treatment in pediatric refractory status epilepticus

OBJECTIVES

Intravenous levetiracetam (LEV) has been shown to be effective and safe in treating adults with refractory status epilepticus (SE). We sought to investigate the efficacy and safety of intravenous LEV for pediatric patients with refractory SE.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective medical-record review of pediatric patients who were treated with intravenous LEV for refractory SE. Clinical information regarding age, sex, seizure type, and underlying neurological status was collected. We evaluated other anticonvulsants that were used prior to administration of intravenous LEV and assessed loading dose, response to treatment, and any adverse events from intravenous LEV administration.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients (8 boys and 6 girls) received intravenous LEV for the treatment of refractory SE. The mean age of the patients was 4.4 ± 5.5 years (range, 4 days to 14.6 years). Ten of the patients were neurologically healthy prior to the refractory SE, and the other 4 had been previously diagnosed with epilepsy. The mean loading dose of intravenous LEV was 26 ± 4.6 mg/kg (range, 20-30 mg/kg). Seizure termination occurred in 6 (43%) of the 14 patients. In particular, 4 (57%) of the 7 patients younger than 2 years showed seizure termination. No immediate adverse events occurred during or after infusions.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study demonstrated that the adjunctive use of intravenous LEV was effective and well tolerated in pediatric patients with refractory SE, even in patients younger than 2 years. Intravenous LEV should be considered as an effective and safe treatment option for refractory SE in pediatric patients.

Management of pediatric status epilepticus

OPINION STATEMENT

Status epilepticus (SE) is a medical emergency consisting of persistent or recurring seizures without a return to baseline mental status. SE can be divided into subtypes based on seizure types and underlying etiologies. Management should be implemented rapidly and based on pre-determined care pathways. The aim is to terminate seizures while simultaneously identifying and managing precipitant conditions. Seizure management involves "emergent" treatment with benzodiazepines (lorazepam intravenously, midazolam intramuscularly, or diazepam rectally) followed by "urgent" therapy (phenytoin/fosphenytoin, phenobarbital, levetiracetam or valproate sodium). If seizures persist, "refractory" treatments include infusions of midazolam or pentobarbital. Prognosis is dependent on the underlying etiology and seizure persistence. This article reviews the current management strategies for pediatric convulsive SE.

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.

Levetiracetam use in the critical care setting

Intravenous (IV) levetiracetam (LEV) is currently approved as an alternative or replacement therapy for patients unable to take the oral form of this antiepileptic drug (AED). The oral form has Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indications for adjunctive therapy in the treatment of partial onset epilepsy ages 1 month or more, myoclonic seizures associated with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy starting with the age of 12 and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in people 6 years and older. Since the initial introduction, oral and IV LEV has been evaluated in various studies conducted in the critical care setting for the treatment of status epilepticus, stroke-related seizures, seizures following subarachnoid or intracerebral hemorrhage, post-traumatic seizures, tumor-related seizures, and seizures in critically ill patients. Additionally, studies evaluating rapid infusion of IV LEV and therapeutic monitoring of serum LEV levels in different patient populations have been performed. In this review we present the current state of knowledge on LEV use in the critical care setting focusing on the IV uses and discuss future research needs.

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.

Lack of compliance of European Public Assessment Reports to guidelines for paediatric drug development before the introduction of paediatric investigation plans

Background

According to the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines for paediatric clinical trials, bridging procedures can be used if disease progression, exposure–response relationships, and clinical endpoints are similar in adults and children. In these circumstances, confirmatory efficacy trials are not necessary; the evaluation of pharmacokinetics and safety ought to be sufficient for drug approval.

Purpose

The aim of this study was to assess whether the clinical trials and strategy for market approval authorisation (MAAs) in paediatric indications reflect the guidelines for bridging of adult data.

Methods

A total of 95 European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) published between 1995 and 2007 were reviewed. From every report, data extraction was performed according to the phase of development, scope of analysis, number of dose levels, dosage form, and demographics of the subjects enrolled in the trial. Data analysis consisted of an initial grouping of the studies by the degree of compliance to bridging guidelines.

Results

Our analysis reveals that only 66% of the trials (n = 174) can be classified as needed, while 22% of the trials (n = 59) could have been designed and performed differently from the approved protocol (partially required). Moreover, 12% (n = 30) of the studies were deemed completely unnecessary.

Limitations

A potential limitation in our study was that the dates of start and completion of the clinical studies were not available. Therefore, some EPARs have been included that may reflect common practice in the period that precedes the introduction of the ICH E11 guidelines. Yet, this should not obscure the points identified with regard to the lack of compliance to guidelines before the introduction of the paediatric legislation and the requirements for a paediatric investigation plan.

Conclusions

Paediatric trials are desirable and necessary to address important unmet medical needs. However, the types of studies supporting regulatory approval do not always reflect the recommendations available in paediatric guidelines, which allow for extrapolation and bridging approaches. This situation may be explained by the lack of awareness about the prerequisites for the use of bridging concepts and of a clear process for evaluating different strategies in paediatric development.

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.

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.

Perioperative seizure incidence and risk factors in 223 pediatric brain tumor patients without prior seizures

OBJECT

The incidence of, and risk factors for, perioperative seizures and the need for perioperative antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in previously seizure-free children with brain tumors remains unclear. The authors have undertaken a review of previously seizure-free pediatric patients with brain tumors undergoing resection to identify the incidence of seizures in the perioperative period, and to characterize risk factors for perioperative seizures in this population.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all patients between 0 and 19 years of age without prior seizures who underwent intracranial tumor resection at the authors' institution between January 2005 and December 2009.

RESULTS

Of the 223 patients undergoing 229 operations, 7.4% experienced at least 1 clinical seizure during the surgical admission. Over half of all tumors were supratentorial. Only 4.4% of patients received prophylactic AEDs. Independent factors associated with perioperative seizures included supratentorial tumor, age < 2 years, and hyponatremia due to syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone or cerebral salt wasting. Tumor type, lobe affected, operative blood loss, and length of surgery were not independently associated with seizure incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative seizures in previously seizure-free children undergoing resection of brain tumors are associated with supratentorial tumor location, age < 2 years, and postoperative hyponatremia. Perioperative seizures are not associated with tumor pathology, tumor size, or frontotemporal location. Due to the low incidence of seizures in this series in patients more than 2 years old with normal serum sodium, the authors recommend that pediatric patients with brain tumors not routinely receive perioperative prophylactic AEDs. However, the role for prophylaxis in patients younger than 2 years of age deserves further study.

Current management of the infant who presents with neonatal encephalopathy

Neonatal encephalopathy after perinatal hypoxic-ischemic insult is a major contributor to global child mortality and morbidity. Brain injury in term infants in response to hypoxic-ischemic insult is a complex process evolving over hours to days, which provides a unique window of opportunity for neuroprotective treatment interventions. Advances in neuroimaging, brain monitoring techniques, and tissue biomarkers have improved the ability to diagnose, monitor, and care for newborn infants with neonatal encephalopathy as well as predict their outcome. However, challenges remain in early identification of infants at risk for neonatal encephalopathy, determination of timing and extent of hypoxic-ischemic brain injury, as well as optimal management and treatment duration. Therapeutic hypothermia is the most promising neuroprotective intervention to date for infants with moderate to severe neonatal encephalopathy after perinatal asphyxia and has currently been incorporated in many neonatal intensive care units in developed countries. However, only 1 in 6 babies with encephalopathy will benefit from hypothermia therapy; many infants still develop significant adverse outcomes. To enhance the outcome, specific diagnostic predictors are needed to identify patients likely to benefit from hypothermia treatment. Studies are needed to determine the efficacy of combined therapeutic strategies with hypothermia therapy to achieve maximal neuroprotective effect. This review focuses on important concepts in the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of infants with neonatal encephalopathy due to perinatal asphyxia, including an overview of recently introduced novel therapies.

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.

Levetiracetam for treatment of neonatal seizures

Neonatal seizures are often refractory to treatment with initial antiseizure medications. Consequently, clinicians turn to alternatives such as levetiracetam, despite the lack of published data regarding its safety, tolerability, or efficacy in the neonatal population. We report a retrospectively identified cohort of 23 neonates with electroencephalographically confirmed seizures who received levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was considered effective if administration was associated with a greater than 50% seizure reduction within 24 hours. Levetiracetam was initiated at a mean conceptional age of 41 weeks. The mean initial dose was 16 ± 6 mg/kg and the mean maximum dose was 45 ± 19 mg/kg/day. No respiratory or cardiovascular adverse effects were reported or detected. Levetiracetam was associated with a greater than 50% seizure reduction in 35% (8 of 23), including seizure termination in 7. Further study is warranted to determine optimal levetiracetam dosing in neonates and to compare efficacy with other antiseizure medications.

Status epilepticus

Status epilepticus is a common neurological emergency in childhood and associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Status epilepticus (SE) has been defined as continuous seizure activity lasting more than 30 min or 2 or more seizures in this duration without gaining consciousness between them. However, the operational definition has brought the time down to 5 min. Management can be broadly divided into initial stabilization, seizure termination, and evaluation and treatment of the underlying cause. Diagnostic evaluation and seizure control should be achieved simultaneously to improve outcome. Seizure termination is achieved by pharmacotherapy. Benzodiazepines are the first line drugs for SE. Commonly used drugs include lorazepam, diazepam, and midazolam. In children without an IV access, buccal or nasal midazolam or rectal diazepam can be used. Phenytoin as a second line agent is usually indicated when seizure is not controlled after one or more doses of benzodiazepines. If the seizures continue to persist, valproate, phenobarbitone or levetiracetam is indicated. Midazolam infusion is useful in refractory status epilepticus. Thiopentone, propofol or high dose phenobarbitone are considered for treatment of refractory status epilepticus. Prolonged SE is associated with higher morbidity and mortality. Long term neurological sequelae include epilepsy, behavioural problems, cognitive decline, and focal neurologic deficits.

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.

Intravenous levetiracetam in the management of acute seizures in children

Levetiracetam may be effective in children with acute seizures or status epilepticus. We performed a retrospective chart review of children who received intravenous levetiracetam within 30 minutes of a seizure. Seventy-three patients during a 2-year study period met our inclusion criteria. The mean (+/- S.D.) age and weight of the patients were 5.59 +/- 5.6 years (range, 1 day to 17.8 years) and 23.1 +/- 21 kg (range, 1.97-97 kg), respectively. Patients received a mean (+/- S.D.) levetiracetam dose of 29.4 +/- 13.5 mg/kg. Most children (n = 49, or 67%) received additional antiepileptic drugs to abort their seizure. Overall, the mean (+/- S.D.) total (abortive plus chronic) number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs used by the population was 2.53 +/- 1.7 (1.07 +/- 0.98 as additional abortive therapy, and 1.42 +/- 1.29 as chronic therapy). Most patients received levetiracetam for serial seizures (79%), whereas 12% and 8% manifested a single seizure or status epilepticus, respectively. Clinical effectiveness at 1, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours after the initial levetiracetam dose constituted the primary study outcome. Eighty-nine percent of patients remained seizure-free at 1 hour. This rate decreased at each evaluation time point. Most patients (71%) were placed on maintenance levetiracetam within 24 hours of their loading dose. The predictive ability of patient and drug regimen variables in outcomes was poor. Only the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs consistently predicted outcomes. Levetiracetam was well tolerated at the doses studied, and appears most effective in single seizure events.

Status epilepticus

Status epilepticus (SE) is one of the most commonly occurring neurologic emergencies. About 40% of SE cases occur in people with epilepsy. Convulsive SE is easily recognized, but nonconvulsive SE is not and requires both a high index of suspicion and EEG confirmation. SE has a high mortality risk and requires rapid effective treatment for optimal response to therapy and outcome. The goal of treatment is to stop all clinical and electrographic seizures while maintaining vital functions. If seizures continue after initial treatment with a benzodiazepine, additional antiepileptic therapy should be administered. When SE is refractory to these treatments, continuous IV infusion with midazolam, propofol, or a barbiturate suppresses seizure activity. Standard treatment protocols are useful in promoting rapid intervention with appropriate medications.