Levetiracetam as alternative stage two antiepileptic drug in status epilepticus: A systematic review

Anticonvulsant and neuroprotective effects of carbamazepine-levetiracetam adjunctive treatment in convulsive status epilepticus rat model: Inhibition of cholinergic transmission

This study evaluated the anticonvulsant and neuroprotective effects of carbamazepine (CBZ), levetiracetam (LEV), and CBZ + LEV adjunctive treatment in convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) rat model. Twenty-five male Wistar rats were randomized into five groups (n = 5). Groups I and II received 0.2 ml of normal saline intraperitoneally (i.p), while groups III-V received CBZ (25 mg/kg i.p), LEV (50 mg/kg i.p) or combination of sub-therapeutic doses of CBZ (12.5 mg/kg i.p) and LEV (25 mg/kg i.p). Thirty minutes later, seizure was kindled with pilocarpine hydrochloride (350 mg/kg) in group II-V rats. Seizure indices, markers of excitotoxicity, and astroglioses were determined, while the hippocampal morphometry was also evaluated. The data was analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics, while the results were presented as mean ± SEM in graphs or tables, and the level of significance was taken at p < 0.05. The anticonvulsant treatments delayed the inception of seizure indices (p = 0.0006), while the percentage mortality decreased significantly (p = 0.0001) in all the treatment groups. The hippocampal concentrations of acetylcholine, malondialdehyde, and tissue necrotic factor-alpha decreased significantly (p = 0.0077) in all the treated group relative to the positive control. The reactive astrogliosis in the hippocampus (CA 1) increased significantly (p = 0.0001) compared with the control but abrogated in all the treatment groups relative to the positive control. The anticonvulsant and neuroprotective effects are in this order: LEV < CBZ + CBZ < CBZ. The drug efficacy is attributable to the inhibition of cholinergic transmission.

Blood concentration of levetiracetam after bolus administration in patients with status epilepticus

PURPOSE

We aimed to evaluate the blood concentration of levetiracetam (LEV), as a second-line drug, in patients with status epilepticus (SE) in an emergency clinical setting.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated 20 consecutive patients with SE admitted to our department between July 2017 and July 2019. LEV (2500 mg) was administered via bolus infusion after diazepam infusion, followed by 500 mg every 12 h for 48 h and then 500 mg orally. The primary outcomes were LEV blood concentration 15 min, 12 h, 48 h, and 96 h after administration and the proportion of patients showing trough LEV concentration within the therapeutic range. The secondary outcomes were the discontinuation of apparent convulsive seizure, epileptic wave on electroencephalogram, tracheal intubation, adverse events related to blood parameters, and abnormal findings in vital signs examination.

RESULTS

Median blood LEV (2500 mg) concentration at 15 min after administration was 81.6 μg/mL. The median trough concentration after 12, 48, and 96 h was 28.8, 10.5, and 9.1 μg/mL, respectively. Moreover, 95% of patients had trough concentration above the lower limit of the therapeutic blood concentration (>12 μg/mL) after 12 h. Regarding secondary outcomes, endotracheal intubation, seizure suppression, and abnormal electroencephalogram findings were observed in approximately 40%, 90%-95%, and 41% of patients, respectively. No abnormal findings were noted in blood tests and vital sign examination, although the AST/ALT levels increased in 10% of the patients.

CONCLUSION

After bolus administration of 2500 mg, the blood LEV concentration reached the therapeutic window in patients with early-stage SE.

Antiepileptic Drug Therapy for Status Epilepticus

Status epilepticus (SE) is one of the most serious neurologic emergencies. SE is a condition that encompasses a broad range of semiologic subtypes and heterogeneous etiologies. The treatment of SE primarily involves the management of the underlying etiology and the use of antiepileptic drug therapy to rapidly terminate seizure activities. The Drug Committee of the Korean Epilepsy Society performed a review of existing guidelines and literature with the aim of providing practical recommendations for antiepileptic drug therapy. This article is one of a series of review articles by the Drug Committee and it summarizes staged antiepileptic drug therapy for SE. While evidence of good quality supports the use of benzodiazepines as the first-line treatment of SE, such evidence informing the administration of second- or third-line treatments is lacking; hence, the recommendations presented herein concerning the treatment of established and refractory SE are based on case series and expert opinions. The choice of antiepileptic drugs in each stage should consider the characteristics and circumstances of each patient, as well as their estimated benefit and risk to them. In tandem with the antiepileptic drug therapy, careful searching for and treatment of the underlying etiology are required.

Treatment of established status epilepticus in the elderly - a study protocol for a prospective multicenter double-blind comparative effectiveness trial (ToSEE)

BACKGROUND

Status epilepticus (SE) is a common neurological emergency condition that especially affects the elderly and old population. Older people with SE frequently have non-convulsive SE (NCSE) and are also at special risk of suffering a poor outcome. The application of benzodiazepines fails to control SE in about one third of the cases. For benzodiazepine refractory SE (BRSE) in elderly, there is little evidence that would justify the choice of one of the commonly used antiepileptic drugs. The present study aims to generate evidence for the treatment of BRSE in this age group.

METHODS

We will conduct a prospective, randomized, double-blind comparative effectiveness study in more than twenty hospitals in Germany over a four-year period. Four hundred and seventy-seven elderly patients (≥ 65 years old) diagnosed with BRSE will be allocated by 1:1 randomization to receive either levetiracetam or valproate. All types of SE will be considered. For the diagnosis NCSE a verification by EEG is required. Levetiracetam or valproate will be administered in one single infusion. The primary endpoint is the stable cessation of ictal activity 15 min after the start of infusion persisting for the following 45 min of observation. EEG recording is maintained over the whole observation period, clinical examinations are conducted in predefined intervals. In case of treatment success patients and study staff remain blinded until 60 min after the start of the infusion. Adverse events will be recorded until the end of the study. EEG data will be reviewed by two external independent experts. To obtain data about the further treatment of SE, intrahospital complications and the functional outcome in the short term the study participants will be observed until the day of discharge or day 30 whichever is earliest.

DISCUSSION

ToSEE is the first study which shall deliver evidence for the SE-therapy in the elderly and old population in a controlled prospective comparator study. By design it also shall collect information about therapy regimes and outcome aspects of this disease.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial has been registered at the German Clinical Trials Register on 3 July, 2020 ( DRKS00022308 ,  https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00022308 ).

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

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

PARTICIPANTS

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

INTERVENTIONS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

FUTURE WORK

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

FUNDING

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

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Drug-Induced Liver Injury in Critically Ill Children Taking Antiepileptic Drugs: A Retrospective Study

•

Critically ill children on anti-epileptic drugs often receive multiple concomitant drugs with potential to result in liver injury.

•

Antimicrobial drugs followed by drugs for stress ulcer prophylaxis form the major drug classes with the risk of DILI that are concomitantly administered with anti-epileptic drugs in critically ill children.

Background

Antiepileptic drugs are among the leading causes of drug-induced liver injury (DILI). Due to critical illness, children admitted to intensive care units are more prone to DILI.

Objective

We attempted to elucidate the association between antiepileptic drug use and the associated factors resulting in DILI in a pediatric intensive care unit of a tertiary care hospital.

Methods

We carried out an observational retrospective study on children receiving antiepileptic drugs. Details on their demographic characteristics, drugs, serum levels of antiepileptic drugs and liver function tests, and hospital stay were recorded. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences definitions were adhered to when defining DILI. LiverTox (https://livertox.nih.gov) and DILIrank were used to assess the risks of hepatotoxicity of the concomitant drugs. Regression models were developed for predicting DILI.

Results

Five out of 9 patients taking phenobarbitone (55.6%), 9 out of 12 taking phenytoin monotherapy (75%), 7 out of 10 taking phenytoin/phenobarbitone (70%), all 3 receiving phenytoin/phenobarbitone/valproate sodium, and 1 with phenytoin/carbamazepine developed DILI either in the form of hepatocellular injury or liver biochemical test abnormalities. None of the patients had cholestatic or mixed type of liver injury. All the critically ill children received at least 2 concomitant drugs with hepatotoxic potential. Concomitant category B hepatotoxic drugs and toxic drug levels were significantly associated with increased risk of DILI. Similarly, a trend was observed for less-DILI-concern concomitant drug class and toxic drug levels when the drugs were analyzed by DILIrank classification.

Conclusions

A significant proportion of critically ill children taking antiepileptic drugs experience DILI. Guidelines recommending use of drugs with reduced risk of potential hepatotoxicity for various concomitant disease states in such children admitted to intensive care units receiving antiepileptic drugs are urgently needed.

Identification of Risk Factors for Refractory Status Epilepticus

Objective: The objective of this study is to identify risk factors for the development of refractory status epilepticus (RSE). Methods: This was an IRB-approved, retrospective case control study that included patients admitted with status epilepticus between August 1, 2014, and July 31, 2017. Cases were defined as those with RSE, and controls were those who did not develop RSE. A bivariate analysis was conducted comparing those with RSE and those without RSE. A stepwise logistic regression model was constructed predicting for progression to RSE. Risk factors for progression to RSE were extrapolated from this model. Results: A total of 184 patients met inclusion criteria for the study (99 controls and 49 cases). After adjusting for covariates in the logistic regression, patients with convulsive seizures had a lower odds of developing RSE (odds ratio [OR] = 0.375; 95% CI = 0.148 to 0.951; P = 0.0388). Treatment with benzodiazepines plus levetiracetam had a higher odds of developing RSE (OR = 3.804; 95% CI = 1.523 to 9.499; P = 0.0042). Conclusion and Relevance: This study found that patients with convulsive seizures had a lower odds of developing RSE. In addition, patients treated with benzodiazepines and levetiracetam had a higher odds of developing RSE. This information can be used to potentially identify patients at higher risk of developing RSE, so that treatment can be modified to reduce morbidity and mortality. These results may warrant further investigation into the effectiveness of levetiracetam as a first-line agent for the treatment of SE.

Levetiracetam and brivaracetam: a review of evidence from clinical trials and clinical experience

Until the early 1990s, a limited number of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were available. Since then, a large variety of new AEDs have been developed and introduced, several of them offering new modes of action. One of these new AED families is described and reviewed in this article. Levetiracetam (LEV) and brivaracetam (BRV) are pyrrolidone derivate compounds binding at the presynaptic SV2A receptor site and are thus representative of AEDs with a unique mode of action. LEV was extensively investigated in randomized controlled trials and has a very promising efficacy both in focal and generalized epilepsies. Its pharmacokinetic profile is favorable and LEV does not undergo clinically relevant interactions. Adverse reactions comprise mainly asthenia, somnolence, and behavioral symptoms. It has now been established as a first-line antiepileptic drug. BRV has been recently introduced as an adjunct antiepileptic drug in focal epilepsy with a similarly promising pharmacokinetic profile and possibly increased tolerability concerning psychiatric adverse events. This review summarizes the essential preclinical and clinical data of LEV and BRV that is currently available and includes the experiences at a large tertiary referral epilepsy center.

Pharmacotherapy for Refractory and Super-Refractory Status Epilepticus in Adults

Patients with prolonged seizures that do not respond to intravenous benzodiazepines and a second-line anticonvulsant suffer from refractory status epilepticus and those with seizures that do not respond to continuous intravenous anesthetic anticonvulsants suffer from super-refractory status epilepticus. Both conditions are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. A strict pharmacological treatment regimen is urgently required, but the level of evidence for the available drugs is very low. Refractory complex focal status epilepticus generally does not require anesthetics, but all intravenous non-anesthetizing anticonvulsants may be used. Most descriptive data are available for levetiracetam, phenytoin and valproate. Refractory generalized convulsive status epilepticus is a life-threatening emergency, and long-term clinical consequences are eminent. Administration of intravenous anesthetics is mandatory, and drugs acting at the inhibitory gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)_A receptor such as midazolam, propofol and thiopental/pentobarbital are recommended without preference for one of those. One in five patients with anesthetic treatment does not respond and has super-refractory status epilepticus. With sustained seizure activity, excitatory N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptors are increasingly expressed post-synaptically. Ketamine is an antagonist at this receptor and may prove efficient in some patients at later stages. Neurosteroids such as allopregnanolone increase sensitivity at GABA_A receptors; a Phase 1/2 trial demonstrated safety and tolerability, but randomized controlled data failed to demonstrate efficacy. Adjunct ketogenic diet may contribute to termination of difficult-to-treat status epilepticus. Randomized controlled trials are needed to increase evidence for treatment of refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus, but there are multiple obstacles for realization. Hitherto, prospective multicenter registries for pharmacological treatment may help to improve our knowledge.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Injectable Levetiracetam Versus Phenytoin as Second-Line Therapy in the Management of Generalized Convulsive Status Epilepticus in Children: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial

Background and Purpose

There is sparsity of quality evidence for the use of drugs after first-line benzodiazepines in convulsive status epilepticus in children. The aim of the study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous levetiracetam versus intravenous phenytoin as second-line drugs in the management of generalized convulsive status epilepticus in children.

Methods

This open-label randomized controlled trial was conducted in the Emergency Department of The Children's Hospital and The Institute of Child Health, Multan, Pakistan over a period of 4 years and 6 months from January 2014 to June 2018. This study included 600 children with generalized convulsive status epilepticus: 300 in the 40 mg/kg levetiracetam group, and 300 in the 20 mg/kg phenytoin group. Cessation of a clinical seizure (seizure cessation rate) within 30 minutes after the end of drug administration was the primary outcome in this study, and the presence or absence of adverse effects was noted as the secondary outcome. Data were analyzed using SPSS (version 20.0).

Results

The children in the levetiracetam and phenytoin were aged 3.5±0.2 and 3.4±0.2 years (mean±SD), respectively, their seizure durations before the start of treatment were 25.1±0.6 and 23.8±0.4 minutes, and their treatment efficacies were 278/300 (92.7%) and 259/300 (83.3%). Levetiracetam was significantly more effective than phenytoin (p=0.012), with no significant difference in safety. Adverse events were observed in eight children in the phenytoin group.

Conclusions

Levetiracetam is significantly more effective than phenytoin for the treatment of convulsive status epilepticus in children who have failed to respond to benzodiazepines.

Newer Antiepileptic Drugs for Status Epilepticus in Adults: What's the Evidence?

Status epilepticus (SE) is one of the most frequent neurological emergencies. Despite this, understanding of its pathophysiology and evidence regarding its management is limited. Rapid, effective, and well-tolerated treatment to achieve seizure cessation is advocated to prevent brain damage or potentially lethal outcomes. The last two decades have witnessed an exponential increase in the number of available antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). These compounds, especially lacosamide and levetiracetam, in view of their intravenous formulation, have been increasingly prescribed in SE. These and other newer AEDs present a promising profile in terms of tolerability, with few centrally depressive effects, favorable pharmacokinetic properties, and fewer drug interactions than classical AEDs; conversely, they are more expensive. There is still no clear evidence to suggest a specific beneficial impact of newer AEDs on SE outcome, preventing any strong recommendation regarding their prescription in SE. Further comparative studies are urgently required to clarify their place and optimal use in the armamentarium of SE treatment.

Status Epilepticus in Adults: A Review of Diagnosis and Treatment

Status epilepticus is a medical emergency that requires rapid diagnosis and treatment. Nonconvulsive status epilepticus is frequently underdiagnosed and therefore undertreated, which can lead to permanent neuronal damage resulting in disability or death. Despite the frequent occurrence and morbidity associated with status epilepticus, this topic has received little attention within the literature. A systematic approach to treatment should start with management of airway, breathing, and circulation, followed by administration of benzodiazepines and intravenous antiepileptic drugs, and rapid escalation of therapy to prevent morbidity and mortality. Armed with the information in this article, nurses will have a higher-level understanding of what to do when encountering a patient in status epilepticus.

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.

The efficacy of different kinds of intravenously applied antiepileptic drugs in the treatment of status epilepticus. How can it be determined?

We explored the influence of four different efficacy criteria on the results of observational studies concerning the treatment of status epilepticus (SE) and its subtypes. We compared and contrasted the results of four different efficacy criteria for the effectiveness of phenytoin, valproate, levetiracetam, and lacosamide. Criterion 1=the last antiepileptic drug (AED) administered before SE termination. Criterion 2=the last drug introduced into the antiepileptic therapy within 72h before the cessation of SE and without changes in dosage or number of the co-medication. Criterion 3=the last drug introduced into the antiepileptic therapy or increased in dose within 24h before termination of the SE without changes in the co-medication. Criterion 4=the last drug introduced into the antiepileptic therapy within 72h before the cessation of SE even allowing changes in the co-medication. We used two-tailed χ²-tests with the Yates adjustment for small samples to evaluate statistical differences between efficacy rates of different AEDs in the entire group and in subgroups of SE according to the second level of subdivisions in axis 1 and according to axis 2 of the new ILAE classification. A total of 145 treatment episodes in 124 patients (47 male, 77 female) were evaluated. There were 23 significant differences in efficacy according to the different criteria. Only criteria 1 and 3 led to significant results in our analysis. When incorporating theoretical considerations and the results of this study, criterion 3 seems to be the most appropriate measure for the evaluation of efficacy of an AED in the treatment of SE, because it seems to be more reasonable than criterion 1.

Treating epileptic emergencies - pharmacological advances

INTRODUCTION

Epileptic emergencies are frequently encountered and include ictal events as status epilepticus or seizure clusters, and non-ictal situations like postictal psychosis or acute drug side effects. The aim of this review was to describe recent pharmacological advances in the treatment of epileptic emergencies. Areas covered: Based on clinically relevant questions, a literature search was performed. The search showed that most pharmacological advances have been made in management of status epilepticus, where substantial literature has accumulated on several AEDs with potentially less side-effects than the traditional choices. The use of these drugs; valproate, levetiracetam, and lacosamide, was therefore made the main focus of this review. Pharmacological advances in treatment of other epileptic emergencies were scarce, and were therefore covered more briefly in the Expert Opinion section. Expert opinion: This section outlines our current practice in management of status epilepticus and seizures clusters. Our opinion is that valproate is an equal alternative as second line treatment to fosphenytoin, with levetiracetam considered a good choice in frail and elderly patients. Due to the lack of literature, lacosamide is used mainly as a 2^nd line drug after the failure of valproate, fosphenytoin and levetiracetam. Our review underlines the need for more research in management of epileptic emergencies.

Efficacy and safety of prophylactic levetiracetam in supratentorial brain tumour surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

The aim of this study was to perform an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of prophylactic administration of levetiracetam in brain tumour patients.

METHOD

A systematic review of studies published until April 2015 was conducted using Scopus/Elsevier, EMBASE and MEDLINE. The search was limited to articles reporting results from adult patients, suffering from brain tumour, undergoing supratentorial craniotomy for tumour resection or biopsy and administered levetiracetam in the perioperative period for seizure prophylaxis. Outcomes included the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam, as well as the tolerability of the specific regimen, defined by the discontinuation of the treatment due to side effects.

RESULTS

The systematic review included 1148 patients from 12 studies comparing levetiracetam with no treatment, phenytoin and valproate, while only 243 patients from three studies, comparing levetiracetam vs phenytoin efficacy and safety, were included in the meta-analysis. The combined results from the meta-analysis showed that levetiracetam administration was followed by significantly fewer seizures than treatment with phenytoin (OR = 0.12 [0.03-0.42]: χ(2) = 1.76: I(2) = 0%). Analysis also showed significantly fewer side effects in patients receiving levetiracetam, compared to other groups (P < 0.05). The combined results showed fewer side effects in the levetiracetam group compared to the phenytoin group (OR = 0.65 [0.14-2.99]: χ(2) = 8.79: I(2) = 77%).

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of prophylaxis with levetiracetam seems to be superior to that with phenytoin and valproate administration. Moreover, levetiracetam use demonstrates fewer side effects in brain tumour patients. Nevertheless, high risk of bias and moderate methodological quality must be taken into account when considering these results.

Brivaracetam, a selective high-affinity synaptic vesicle protein 2A (SV2A) ligand with preclinical evidence of high brain permeability and fast onset of action

OBJECTIVE

Rapid distribution to the brain is a prerequisite for antiepileptic drugs used for treatment of acute seizures. The preclinical studies described here investigated the high-affinity synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A (SV2A) antiepileptic drug brivara-cetam (BRV) for its rate of brain penetration and its onset of action. BRV was compared with levetiracetam (LEV).

METHODS

In vitro permeation studies were performed using Caco-2 cells. Plasma and brain levels were measured over time after single oral dosing to audiogenic mice and were correlated with anticonvulsant activity. Tissue distribution was investigated after single dosing to rat (BRV and LEV) and dog (LEV only). Positron emission tomography (PET) displacement studies were performed in rhesus monkeys using the SV2A PET tracer [11C]UCB-J. The time course of PET tracer displacement was measured following single intravenous (IV) dosing with LEV or BRV. Rodent distribution data and physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling were used to compute blood-brain barrier permeability (permeability surface area product, PS) values and then predict brain kinetics in man.

RESULTS

In rodents, BRV consistently showed a faster entry into the brain than LEV; this correlated with a faster onset of action against seizures in audiogenic susceptible mice. The higher permeability of BRV was also demonstrated in human cells in vitro. PBPK modeling predicted that, following IV dosing to human subjects, BRV might distribute to the brain within a few minutes compared with approximately 1 h for LEV (PS of 0.315 and 0.015 ml/min/g for BRV and LEV, respectively). These data were supported by a nonhuman primate PET study showing faster SV2A occupancy by BRV compared with LEV.

SIGNIFICANCE

These preclinical data demonstrate that BRV has rapid brain entry and fast brain SV2A occupancy, consistent with the fast onset of action in the audiogenic seizure mice assay. The potential benefit of BRV for treatment of acute seizures remains to be confirmed in clinical studies.

Prehospital treatment with levetiracetam plus clonazepam or placebo plus clonazepam in status epilepticus (SAMUKeppra): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Generalised convulsive status epilepticus (GCSE) should be treated quickly. Benzodiazepines are the only drug treatment available so far that is effective before admission to hospital. We assessed whether addition of the antiepileptic drug levetiracetam to the benzodiazepine clonazepam would improve prehospital treatment of GCSE.

METHODS

We did a prehospital, randomised, double-blind, phase 3, placebo-controlled, superiority trial to determine the efficacy of adding intravenous levetiracetam (2.5 g) to clonazepam (1 mg) in treatment of GCSE in 13 emergency medical service centres and 26 hospital departments in France. Randomisation was done at the Paris Descartes Clinical Research Unit with a list of random numbers generated by computer. Adults with convulsions lasting longer than 5 min were randomly assigned (1:1) by prehospital physicians to receive levetiracetam or placebo in combination with clonazepam. All physicians and paramedics were masked to group assignments. If the status epilepticus lasted beyond 5 min after drug injection, a second dose of 1 mg clonazepam was given. The primary outcome was cessation of convulsions within 15 min of drug injection. We analysed the modified intention-to-treat population that had received at least one injection of clonazepam and levetiracetam or placebo, excluding patients without valid consent and those randomised more than once. The trial is registered at EudraCT, number 2007-005782-35.

FINDINGS

Between July 20, 2009, and Dec 15, 2012, 107 patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo and 96 were assigned to receive levetiracetam. The trial was discontinued on Dec 15, 2012 when interim analysis showed no evidence of a treatment difference, and 68 patients in each group were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Convulsions stopped at 15 min of drug injection in 57 of 68 patients (84%) receiving clonazepam and placebo and in 50 of 68 patients (74%) receiving clonazepam and levetiracetam (percentage difference -10.3%, 95% CI -24.0 to 3.4). Three deaths, 19 of 47 (40 %) serious adverse events, and 90 of 197 (46%) non-serious events were reported in the levetiracetam group, and four deaths, 28 of 47 (60%) serious events, and 107 of 197 (54%) non-serious events were reported in the placebo group.

INTERPRETATION

The addition of levetiracetam to clonazepam treatment presented no advantage over clonazepam treatment alone in the control of GCSE before admission to hospital. Future prehospital trials could assess the efficacy of clonazepam alone as a first-line treatment in status epilepticus and the efficacy of a second injection of clonazepam with another antiepileptic drug as second-line treatment.

FUNDING

UCB Pharma.

Pharmacotherapy for Status Epilepticus

Status epilepticus (SE) represents the most severe form of epilepsy. It is one of the most common neurologic emergencies, with an incidence of up to 61 per 100,000 per year and an estimated mortality of 20 %. Clinically, tonic-clonic convulsive SE is divided into four subsequent stages: early, established, refractory, and super-refractory. Pharmacotherapy of status epilepticus, especially of its later stages, represents an "evidence-free zone," due to a lack of high-quality, controlled trials to inform clinical decisions. This comprehensive narrative review focuses on the pharmacotherapy of SE, presented according to the four-staged approach outlined above, and providing pharmacological properties and efficacy/safety data for each antiepileptic drug according to the strength of scientific evidence from the available literature. Data sources included MEDLINE and back-tracking of references in pertinent studies. Intravenous lorazepam or intramuscular midazolam effectively control early SE in approximately 63-73 % of patients. Despite a suboptimal safety profile, intravenous phenytoin or phenobarbital are widely used treatments for established SE; alternatives include valproate, levetiracetam, and lacosamide. Anesthetics are widely used in refractory and super-refractory SE, despite the current lack of trials in this field. Data on alternative treatments in the later stages are limited. Valproate and levetiracetam represent safe and effective alternatives to phenobarbital and phenytoin for treatment of established SE persisting despite first-line treatment with benzodiazepines. To date there are no class I data to support recommendations for most antiepileptic drugs for established, refractory, and super-refractory SE. Limiting the methodologic heterogeneity across studies is required and high-class randomized, controlled trials to inform clinicians about the best treatment in established and refractory status are needed.

Comparison of the effectiveness of four antiepileptic drugs in the treatment of status epilepticus according to four different efficacy criteria

The preliminary data presented here shall give an impression on how different criteria for the identification of an antiepileptic drug (AED) with a possible or certain treatment effect can have an influence on the results of retrospective case series. We present a data subset from a large retrospective study which, when completed, will cover all treatment episodes of status epilepticus (SE) at the neurological department of the Universitätsmedizin Rostock from January 2010 to June 2013. We compare and contrast the results of four different efficacy criteria for the effectiveness of phenytoin (PHT), valproate (VPA), levetiracetam (LEV), and lacosamide (LCM): criterion 1 = the last AED administered before SE termination; criterion 2 = the last drug introduced into the antiepileptic therapy within 72 h before SE termination and without changes in the comedication; criterion 3 = the last drug introduced into the antiepileptic therapy or increased in dose within 24h before SE termination without changes in the comedication; and criterion 4 = the last drug introduced into the antiepileptic therapy within 72 h before SE termination, even allowing changes in the comedication. Thirty-seven treatment episodes in 32 patients (13 male and 19 female, mean age at first episode: 68 years, SD: 17) could be analyzed. In 31 episodes, at least one AED was given intravenously. Efficacy rates in the whole case series according to all four criteria were not significantly different between the four AEDs, but there was a considerable difference in the efficacy rates of each AED when evaluating them with the different efficacy criteria. Our data show that statistically significant results concerning the efficacy of different AEDs in different subtypes of SE may depend on the outcome criteria. Therefore, efficacy criteria for the effectiveness of AEDs in the treatment of SE should be standardized. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled Status Epilepticus.

Levetiracetam versus phenytoin in management of status epilepticus

The purpose of this study was to compare safety and efficacy of intravenous (IV) levetiracetam (LEV) with IV phenytoin (PHT) in management of status epilepticus (SE). The second-line treatment of SE is limited to a few drugs available in an IV formulation such as PHT, fosphenytoin and valproate. The relative lack of serious side effects and favourable pharmacokinetics of LEV made it a promising option in management of SE. Randomized trials comparing relative efficacy of second-line agents are remarkably lacking. In this study, consecutive patients of SE (n=44) were randomized to receive either IV PHT (20mg/kg) or IV LEV (20mg/kg). The primary end point was successful clinical termination of seizure activity within 30min after the beginning of the drug infusion. Secondary end points included recurrence of seizures within 24 hours, drug related adverse effects, neurological outcome at discharge, need for ventilatory assistance, and mortality during hospitalization. Both LEV and PHT were equally effective with regard to primary and secondary outcome measures. PHT achieved control of SE in 15 (68.2%) patients compared to LEV in 13 (59.1%; p=0.53). Both the groups showed comparable results with respect to recurrence of seizures within 24 hours (p=0.34), outcome at discharge as assessed by functional independence measure (p=0.68), need of ventilatory assistance (p=0.47) and death (p=1). From this study it can be concluded that LEV may be an attractive and effective alternative to PHT in management of SE.

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.

Status epilepticus: an update

Status epilepticus (SE) still results in significant mortality and morbidity. Whereas mortality depends mainly on the age of the patient as well as the cause, morbidity is often due to the myriad of complications that occur during prolonged admission to an intensive care environment. Although SE is a clinical diagnosis in most cases (convulsant), its treatment requires support by continuous electroencephalographic recording to ensure cessation of potential nonconvulsive elements of SE. Treatment has recently changed to incorporate four stages and must be initiated at the earliest possible time.

Mechanisms of levetiracetam in the control of status epilepticus and epilepsy

Status epilepticus (SE) is a major clinical emergency that is associated with high mortality and morbidity. SE causes significant neuronal injury and survivors are at a greater risk of developing acquired epilepsy and other neurological morbidities, including depression and cognitive deficits. Benzodiazepines and some anticonvulsant agents are drugs of choice for initial SE management. Despite their effectiveness, over 40% of SE cases are refractory to the initial treatment with two or more medications. Thus, there is an unmet need of developing newer anti-SE drugs. Levetiracetam (LEV) is a widely prescribed anti-epileptic drug that has been reported to be used in SE cases, especially in benzodiazepine-resistant SE or where phenytoin cannot be used due to allergic side-effects. Levetiracetam’s non-classical anti-epileptic mechanisms of action, favorable pharmacokinetic profile, general lack of central depressant effects, and lower incidence of drug interactions contribute to its use in SE management. This review will focus on LEV’s unique mechanism of action that makes it a viable candidate for SE treatment.

Review of Levetiracetam as a First Line Treatment in Status Epilepticus in the Adult Patients - What Do We Know so Far?

With the advent of new antiepileptic drugs comes the potential for significant advances in the emergent management of status epilepticus. Traditional antiepileptic drugs possess side effect profiles that may limit their clinical utility or lead to increased patient morbidity or mortality. The relatively recent development of levetiracetam shows promise for effective control of acute status epilepticus in adults, but current objective data of its use as a first-line agent for control of status is quite limited. This paper serves to examine existing literature while considering levetiracetam as a first-line therapy in status in the adult patient population. Although existing studies are narrow in their scope, the present data lay a substantial foundation for further investigation of levetiracetam as a primary therapy in acute status epilepticus.

The efficacy of intravenous sodium valproate and phenytoin as the first-line treatment in status epilepticus: a comparison study

Background

Status epilepticus (SE) is a serious neurological condition and requires prompt treatment. Sodium valproate has been used to treat SE successfully but its role as the first-line antiepileptic drug (AED) is still controversial. This study evaluated the efficacy of intravenous sodium valproate to determine if it is non-inferior to intravenous phenytoin in SE treatment.

Methods

Patients diagnosed as SE during 2003–2010 who were of an age of more than 15 years and received either intravenous sodium valproate or intravenous phenytoin as the first-line treatment were enrolled. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of SE were recorded and analyzed. The differences of outcomes between sodium valproate and phenytoin group were determined by descriptive statistics.

Results

During the study period, there were 37 and 17 SE patients who received intravenous phenytoin and intravenous sodium valproate as the first-line treatment, respectively. All patients received diazepam 10 mg intravenously as a rescue medication before starting the antiepileptic agents if uncontrolled except one patient in the sodium valproate group. There were no significant differences between the phenytoin and sodium valproate groups in all outcome variables including numbers of patients with clinically-controlled seizures, non-dependent patients, time to seizure control, and duration of hospitalization, and death. No serious cardiovasculars event such as hypotension occurred in either group.

Conclusion

Intravenous sodium valproate is non-inferior to intravenous phenytoin as the first-line treatment in SE with no significant cardiovascular compromises.

Pediatric seizures

Seizures are a commonly encountered condition within the emergency department and, because of this, can engender complacency on the part of the physicians and staff. Unfortunately, there is significant associated morbidity and mortality with seizures, and they should never be regarded as routine. This point is particularly important with respect to seizures in pediatric patients. The aim of this review is to provide a current view of the various issues that make pediatric seizures unique and to help elucidate emergent evaluation and management strategies.

Seizures and the neurosurgical intensive care unit

The cause of seizures in the neurosurgical intensive care unit (NICU) can be categorized as emanating from either a primary brain pathology or from physiologic derangements of critical care illness. Patients are typically treated with parenteral antiepileptic drugs. For early onset ICU seizures that are easily controlled, data support limited treatment. Late seizures have a more ominous risk for subsequent epilepsy and should be treated for extended periods of time or indefinitely. This review ends by examining the treatment algorithms for simple seizures and status epilepticus and the role newer antiepileptic use can play in the NICU.