Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials on First Line and Adjunctive Levetiracetam

Combined effects of levetiracetam and sodium valproate on paediatric patients with epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the safety and efficacy of sodium valproate combined with levetiracetam in paediatric patients with epilepsy based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Chinese Journal Full-Text Database (CNKI), WANGFANG DATA and Sino Med were searched between January 1946 and May 2021. The included literature was randomized controlled clinical trials focusing on sodium valproate combined with levetiracetam in paediatric patients with epilepsy. Two evaluators separately collected the data based on the retrieval strategy, filtered the literature in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and summarized the literature that satisfied the criteria. The statistical programme used for the meta-analysis was Stata V14.0.

RESULTS

Of 577 original titles screened, data were extracted from 7 studies (617 participants). Compared with sodium valproate alone or sodium valproate combined with topiramate, the application of sodium valproate combined with levetiracetam in the treatment of paediatric epilepsy significantly improved the overall therapeutic effect (RR=1.24, 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.33, p=0.927). The observation group significantly reduced the occurrence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) (RR=0.54, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.79, p=0.602). Egger's regression test of the overall therapeutic effect showed no potential publication bias (p=0.122).

CONCLUSION

Based on this meta-analysis, compared with sodium valproate alone or sodium valproate with topiramate, the application of sodium valproate combined with levetiracetam in the treatment of paediatric epilepsy can significantly improve the overall therapeutic effect and simultaneously reduce the occurrence of ADR. Therefore, we recommend sodium valproate combined with levetiracetam for the therapy of paediatric patients with epilepsy.

Amelioration of Levetiracetam-Induced Behavioral Side Effects by Pyridoxine. A Randomized Double Blind Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Levetiracetam is a relatively new-generation antiseizure drug approved for the treatment of focal and generalized seizures. Despite its favorable side effect profile and minimal drug-drug interactions, neuropsychiatric side effects are reported in up to 13% of children. A few case series have suggested that supplementation of pyridoxine may mitigate these side effects, but controlled trials are lacking. To address this issue, a randomized interventional study was carried out in a pediatric tertiary hospital to qualify and quantify the potential beneficial effect of pyridoxine in attenuating the neuropsychiatric side effects of levetiracetam in children.

METHODS

A total of 105 children with epilepsy who were taking levetiracetam (as a monotherapy or an adjunct) who showed behavioral symptoms coinciding with the start of levetiracetam, were included. Patients randomly and blindly received either a therapeutic (pyridoxine group, 46 of 105, 44%) or a homeopathic dose of pyridoxine (placebo, 59 of 105, 56%). A 30-item behavioral checklist was used to qualify and quantify the behavioral side effects at baseline and at different time points following initiation of treatment.

RESULTS

Both placebo and pyridoxine groups experienced a statistical reduction in behavioral scores when compared with baseline. Our study indicated that although there was a placebo effect, the improvement in neuropsychiatric symptoms was more prominent in children who received therapeutic doses of pyridoxine.

CONCLUSIONS

These data provide clinicians with pertinent evidence-based information that suggests that a trial of pyridoxine in patients who experience behavioral side effects due to the use of levetiracetam may avoid unnecessary change of antiseizure medications.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

REGISTERED NUMBER

PROSPERO (No CRD 42017069367).

HLA-A*11:01 is associated with levetiracetam-induced psychiatric adverse events

Levetiracetam (LEV) is effective for focal and generalized epilepsy and is used worldwide because of its relatively few drug interactions and favorable tolerability. However, some psychiatric adverse events (PAEs) have been reported, resulting in drug withdrawal. The pathophysiology of LEV-induced PAE has not yet been elucidated. In this study, we investigated the relationship between PAEs and human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes. Eleven epilepsy patients, who developed PAEs after the administration of LEV and spontaneously improved after drug withdrawal, were enrolled retrospectively. Genomic DNA from the peripheral blood was extracted, and four-digit allele genotyping of HLA genes was performed. The genotype frequencies of HLA genes were compared to those of 80 patients in which LEV was well tolerated, as well as to 485 individuals from the general Korean population. The frequency of the HLA-A*1101 allele was significantly higher in the LEV-induced PAEs group compared to both the LEV-tolerant group (p = 0.021, OR 4.80, 95% CI 1.30-17.74) and the general Korean population (p = 0.015, OR 4.62, 95% CI 1.38-15.45). This study is the first attempt at investigating the relationship between the HLA system and LEV-induced PAE. The results of this study suggest that the HLA-A*1101 allele could be a risk factor for the development of PAEs.

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on levetiracetam in the treatment of pediatric patients with epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability of levetiracetam as mono- or adjunctive therapy in the treatment of children and adolescents with epilepsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published from January 2007 to December 2016 in the databases Web of Science, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and PubMed, Bing, Baidu, Google Scholar, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang Data. All of the studies eligible were compared for the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of levetiracetam with other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in epilepsy.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomized controlled trials on a total of 1,013 patients met the inclusion criteria in present study. Compared with other AEDs (oxcarbazepine, valproate, sulthiame, carbamazepine, and placebo), we found that levetiracetam had a comparable seizure-free rate (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.31; P=0.30). Regarding seizure-frequency reduction ≥50% from baseline, levetiracetam also seemed equivalent to other AEDs (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.16; P=0.35). In spite of patients treated with levetiracetam having a lower incidence of side effects compared with patients treated with other AEDs (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77-1.06), the difference between them was minute and not statistically significant (P=0.22).

CONCLUSION

Based on this meta-analysis, it seemed that levetiracetam had comparable effects concerning efficacy, tolerability, and adverse events. Nevertheless, 13 studies were insufficient to draw a conclusion that levetiracetam is effective as mono- and adjunctive therapy for all types of epilepsy syndromes and seizures. Larger-sample and more well-designed trials are needed to justify the widespread use of levetiracetam in the treatment of children and adolescents.

Levetiracetam-induced cutaneous adverse drug reactions were not associated with HLA genes in a small sample of Chinese patients with epilepsy

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical characteristics of levetiracetam (LEV)-induced cutaneous adverse drug reactions (cADRs) and to explore its possible genetic association with the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes.

METHODS

Nine cases with LEV-induced cADRs were recruited. Demographic and clinical information of these cases was summarized. Additionally, cases were matched with LEV-tolerant controls (1:4). High-resolution HLA class I and class II genotyping was performed for each participant. The allele frequencies between the cases and controls were compared.

RESULTS

All LEV-induced cADRs were mild skin rashes which occurred within 28 days of LEV exposure. The mean latency from LEV exposure to skin rash was (15.67±5.41) days (ranging 6-27). The carrier rates of the two alleles, HLA-DRB1*0405 and HLA-DQB1*0401, were higher in cases compared with controls (the same P=0.036, OR=13.875, 95% CI: 1.273-151.230). The association between the HLA-C*0304 allele and LEV-induced cADRs was boundary (P=0.05, OR=5.2, 95% CI: 1.086-24.897). However, the above-mentioned HLA alleles didn't reach statistical significance after multiple comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Safety monitoring was necessary within four weeks after the initiation of LEV treatment, although it has been regarded as a safe antiepileptic drug. Our study failed to show any potential link between HLA alleles and LEV-induced cADRs in Han Chinese. Further studies are needed to clarify the genetic and immunological mechanisms of LEV-induced cADRs.

Measurement of levetiracetam drug levels to assist with seizure control and monitoring of drug interactions with other anti-epileptic medications (AEMs)

PURPOSE

Levetiracetam (LEV) therapeutic range (20-40mg/L) and potential drug interactions were assessed in people with epilepsy (PWE).

METHOD

Fifty-two PWE had LEV and concomitant medications [carbamazepine (CBZ); valproate (VPA); lamotrigine (LTG)] blood levels measured and compared to seizure activity. Lacosamide (LCM) levels were unavailable. Adopted therapeutic ranges were: 20-40mg/L - LEV; 25-50μmol/L - total CBZ; 6-13μmol/L - free CBZ; 300-750μmol/L - total VPA; 30-75μmol/L - free VPA; and 40-60μmol/L - LTG. Seizure-freedom was assessed and patients followed for almost two years.

RESULTS

23 of 52 PWE (44%) used LEV monotherapy and 16/23 (70%) had 'therapeutic' LEV with 13/16 (81%) seizure-free. 29 of 52 (56%) used polytherapy and 16/29 (55%) had 'therapeutic' LEV with 7/16 (44%) seizure-free. 11 of 29 (38%) used CBZ: 4/11 (36%) had therapeutic mean LEV levels and 7/11 (64%) were seizure-free. Fourteen (48%) used VPA: 9/14 (64%) had therapeutic mean LEV levels and 8/14 (57%) were seizure-free. 13 of 29 (45%) used LTG: 8/13 (62%) had therapeutic mean LEV levels and 5/13 (38%) were seizure-free. LEV did not alter CBZ, but CBZ affected LEV. LEV elevated VPA free levels but not VPA total levels. Dosage/concentration was lowered with polytherapy.

CONCLUSION

LEV range (20-40mg/L) assisted epilepsy management and anti-epileptic medication interactions were suggested with polytherapy thus possibly explaining the impaired efficacy of LEV with polytherapy.

Prospective Open-Label, Single-Arm, Multicenter, Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetic Studies of Intravenous Levetiracetam in Children With Epilepsy

Levetiracetam given via intravenous administration has been shown to be an effective alternative in adults with epilepsy when oral administration is not feasible. This study was a prospective single-arm, multicenter study to assess tolerability, safety, and pharmacokinetics of intravenous levetiracetam in children with epilepsy. Children with epilepsy ages 1 month to 16 years requiring intravenous levetiracetam were enrolled. Assessments included vital signs, electrocardiogram, hematology, chemistry, plasma concentrations of antiepileptic medications, weight, physical/neurological examinations, and pharmacokinetics. A total of 52 patients were enrolled. Mild to moderate treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 63%, the most frequent being pyrexia and dry mouth. Most other treatment-emergent adverse events were considered unrelated to intravenous levetiracetam administration. Therefore, intravenous levetiracetam in the acute setting was overall well tolerated in children 1 month to 16 years.

Regulators of synaptic transmission: roles in the pathogenesis and treatment of epilepsy

Synaptic transmission is the communication between a presynaptic and a postsynaptic neuron, and the subsequent processing of the signal. These processes are complex and highly regulated, reflecting their importance in normal brain functioning and homeostasis. Sustaining synaptic transmission depends on the continuing cycle of synaptic vesicle formation, release, and endocytosis, which requires proteins such as dynamin, syndapin, synapsin, and synaptic vesicle protein 2A. Synaptic transmission is regulated by diverse mechanisms, including presynaptic modulators of synaptic vesicle formation and release, postsynaptic receptors and signaling, and modulators of neurotransmission. Neurotransmitters released presynaptically can bind to their postsynaptic receptors, the inhibitory γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA)ergic receptors or the excitatory glutamate receptors. Once released, glutamate activates a variety of postsynaptic receptors including α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA), N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA), kainate, and metabotropic receptors. The activation of the receptors triggers downstream signaling cascades generating a vast array of effects, which can be modulated by a numerous auxiliary regulatory subunits. Moreover, different neuropeptides such as neuropeptide Y, brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), somatostatin, ghrelin, and galanin, act as regulators of diverse synaptic functions and along with the classic neurotransmitters. Abnormalities in the regulation of synaptic transmission play a critical role in the pathogenesis of numerous brain diseases, including epilepsy. This review focuses on the different mechanisms involved in the regulation of synaptic transmission, which may play a role in the pathogenesis of epilepsy: the presynaptic modulators of synaptic vesicle formation and release, postsynaptic receptors, and modulators of neurotransmission, including the mechanism by which drugs can modulate the frequency and severity of epileptic seizures.

[Primary prophylaxis of early seizures after surgery of cerebral supratentorial tumors: Group for the Study of Functional-Sterotactic Neurosurgery of The Spain Society of Neurosurgery recommendations]

Our review of the literature is basically focused on the primary prophylaxis of early seizures after surgery of cerebral supratentorial tumors, with the aim of suggesting several recommendations in medical antiepileptic treatment to avoid this kind of seizures which occur immediately after surgery. In conclusion, it is recommended to provide criteria for prophylaxis of early seizures after surgery of cerebral supratentorial tumors. It́s recommended a one week treatment with antiepileptic drugs in patients who didńt have seizures jet, starting immediately after the surgical treatment. If seizures appear during progress of the disease, a large period treatment will be needed. Preferred antiepileptic treatment is intravenous and with a low interactions profile. Levetiracetam, followed by valproic acid seem to be most appropriated drugs due to their properties and protective effects, particularly for our patients requirements. These recommendations are considered a general proposal to effective clinical management of early seizures after surgery, not taking into account the single circumstances of our patients. Always, clinical features of the patients could modify even significantly these guides in the benefit of each patient.