Black-Box Warnings of Antiseizure Medications: What is Inside the Box?

Antiseizure medications can cause serious adverse reactions and have deleterious drug interactions that often complicate the clinical management of patients. When the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) wants to alert healthcare providers and patients about the risk of potentially serious or fatal drug reactions, the FDA requires the manufacturers of these medications to format these warnings within a "black-box" border, and prominently display this box on the first section of the package insert; such warnings are called "black-box warnings (BBWs)". The BBW is a way for the FDA to urge physicians to evaluate patients more rigorously and carefully weigh the risks and benefits, before prescribing medication that has the potential to cause serious adverse reactions, and to formulate a plan for close monitoring during therapy. The FDA BBW provides the extra layer of safety but many healthcare providers fail to comply with these warnings. Currently, there are 26 FDA-approved antiseizure medications in the US market, 38% of which have received BBWs, and most of the antiseizure medications with BBWs are older-generation drugs. Some antiseizure medications have multiple BBWs; for example, valproic acid has three BBWs including hepatotoxicity, fetal risk, and pancreatitis, carbamazepine has BBWs of serious skin and hematological reactions, and felbamate also has two BBWs including hepatic failure and aplastic anemia. The purpose of this review is to provide insight into each BBW received by antiseizure medications and discuss the FDA recommendations for evaluating the drug benefit/risk, and for monitoring parameters before the initiation of and during treatment.

The heart of epilepsy: Current views and future concepts

Cardiovascular (CV) comorbidities are common in people with epilepsy. Several mechanisms explain why these conditions tend to co-exist including causal associations, shared risk factors and those resulting from epilepsy or its treatment. Various arrhythmias occurring during and after seizures have been described. Ictal asystole is the most common cause. The converse phenomenon, arrhythmias causing seizures, appears extremely rare and has only been reported in children following cardioinihibitory syncope. Arrhythmias in epilepsy may not only result from seizure activity but also from a shared genetic susceptibility. Various cardiac and epilepsy genes could be implicated but firm evidence is still lacking. Several antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) triggering conduction abnormalities can also explain the co-existence of arrhythmias in epilepsy. Epidemiological studies have consistently shown that people with epilepsy have a higher prevalence of structural cardiac disease and a poorer CV risk profile than those without epilepsy. Shared CV risk factors, genetics and etiological factors can account for a significant part of the relationship between epilepsy and structural cardiac disease. Seizure activity may cause transient myocardial ischaemia and the Takotsubo syndrome. Additionally, certain AEDs may themselves negatively affect CV risk profile in epilepsy. Here we discuss the fascinating borderland of epilepsy and cardiovascular conditions. The review focuses on epidemiology, clinical presentations and possible mechanisms for shared pathophysiology. It concludes with a discussion of future developments and a call for validated screening instruments and guidelines aiding the early identification and treatment of CV comorbidity in epilepsy.

Cardiovascular adverse effects of phenytoin

Phenytoin is an established drug in the treatment of acute repetitive seizures and status epilepticus. One of its main advantages over benzodiazepines is the less sedative effect. However, the possibility of cardiovascular adverse effects with the intravenous use of phenytoin cause a reluctance to its usage, and this has lead to a search for safer anticonvulsant drugs. In this study, we aimed to review the studies which evaluated the safety of phenytoin with respect to cardiovascular adverse effects. The original clinical trials and case reports listed in PUBMED in English language between the years of 1946-2014 were evaluated. As the key words, "phenytoin, diphenylhydantoin, epilepsy, seizure, cardiac toxicity, asystole, arrhythmia, respiratory arrest, hypotension, death" were used. Thirty-two clinical trials and ten case reports were identified. In the case reports, a rapid infusion rate (>50 mg/min) of phenytoin appeared as the major cause of increased mortality. In contrast, no serious cardiovascular adverse effects leading to death were met in the clinical trials which applied the recommended infusion rate and dosages. An infusion rate of 50 mg/min was reported to be safe for young patients. For old patients and patients with a cardiovascular co-morbidity, a slower infusion rate was recommended with a careful follow-up of heart rhythm and blood pressure. No cardiovascular adverse effect was reported in oral phenytoin overdoses except one case with a very high serum phenytoin level and hypoalbuminemia. Phenytoin is an effective and well tolerated drug in the treatment of epilepsy. Intravenous phenytoin is safe when given at recommended infusion rates and doses.

Requirement for cardiac telemetry during intravenous phenytoin infusion: guideline fact or guideline fiction?

Guidelines recommend the use of cardiac telemetry when phenytoin is administered intravenously. Clinical areas where telemetry is available may not always be the most suitable place to monitor and treat these sick patients. We sought to clarify the evidence regarding the need for cardiac telemetry during intravenous infusion of phenytoin.

Evaluation of intramuscular fosphenytoin vs intravenous phenytoin loading in the ED

OBJECTIVE

A comparison of length of stay in an emergency department (ED) after loading patients at risk for seizures with either intravenous (IV) phenytoin or intramuscular (IM) fosphenytoin was studied.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational cohort study that was conducted over a 24-month period in an academic teaching hospital (693 beds). Patients included were 18 years or older, discharged from the ED without hospital admission, and loaded with either IV phenytoin or IM fosphenytoin. The primary end point was the comparison of length of stay in the ED until discharge after loading. Characterization of seizure etiology, cardiac risk factors, and adverse drug events were also observed.

RESULTS

A total of 51 patients were evaluated who received IV phenytoin compared with 59 for IM fosphenytoin. The median time-to-discharge difference between IV phenytoin vs IM fosphenytoin was 1:49 hours (95% confidence interval, 1:24-2:24 hours; P < .001). There was no statistical difference in cardiac risk factors and occurrence of adverse drug events between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that patients were discharged from the ED earlier with the loading of IM fosphenytoin compared to IV phenytoin.

A comparison of phenytoin-loading techniques in the emergency department

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectivenesses of three phenytoin-loading techniques.

METHODS

Patients with subtherapeutic phenytoin concentrations who presented within 48 hours of a seizure were randomized to receive either 20 mg/kg of oral phenytoin (PO), divided in maximum doses of 400 mg every two hours, 18 mg/kg of intravenous phenytoin (IVP) at an initial infusion rate of 50 mg/min, or 18 mg/kg (phenytoin equivalents) of intravenous fosphenytoin (IVF) at an initial infusion rate of 150 mg/min.

RESULTS

A total of 45 patients were enrolled: 16 in the PO group, 14 in the IVP group, and 15 in the IVF group. The times required to reach therapeutic drug concentrations were (mean +/- standard deviation [SD]) 5.62 +/- 0.28 hours, 0.24 +/- 0.3 hours, and 0.21 +/- 0.28 hours, respectively. A total of 17, 27, and 32 adverse drug events were observed in the PO, IVP, and IVF groups, respectively, with significantly fewer events in the PO group (p = 0.02, p = 0.01). No significant difference was found between the numbers of necessary adjustments to the infusions in the two IV groups. The average time to safe emergency department discharge was significantly shorter for the IV groups compared with the PO group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral loading has fewer adverse drug events than either IV loading method, but its use may be limited when therapeutic concentrations are required quickly. Although IVF loading is faster, from an adverse-drug event perspective, no advantage of IVF over IVP was apparent.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Nonconvulsive Status Epilepticus in an Intensive Care Unit Setting

Nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) in adults is a heterogeneous epileptic emergency and includes absence status (AS), complex-partial status epilepticus (CPSE), and the status epilepticus of epileptic encephalopathy (SEEE). The latter seems to be strikingly frequent among patients in intensive care units (ICU). Diagnosis of NCSE is difficult, but has to be made quickly. It relies on clinical signs and a confirmation electroencephalography (EEG). According to the different etiologies and outcomes of AS, CPSE, and SEEE, treatment has to be individually adapted, but needs to follow some basic principles--treatment should take place in the ICU and be monitored by continuous EEG. With a few exceptions, the first drug is an intravenous benzodiazepine, mainly lorazepam. Intravenous fosphenytoin or phenytoin or valproate may follow next. If some forms of NCSE are resistant to first- and second-line treatments, single or combinations of anesthetics and enteral antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) may be added. This opinion is not evidence-based, and randomized controlled prospective trials to evaluate optimal treatment of NCSE are of first priority.