Levetiracetam as the first-line treatment for neonatal seizures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

UK research priority setting for childhood neurological conditions

AIM

To identify research priorities regarding the effectiveness of interventions for children and young people (CYP) with childhood neurological conditions (CNCs). These include common conditions such as epilepsies and cerebral palsy, as well as many rare conditions.

METHOD

The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and the James Lind Alliance (JLA) champion and facilitate priority setting partnerships (PSPs) between patients, caregivers, and clinicians (stakeholders) to identify the most important unanswered questions for research (uncertainties). A NIHR-JLA and British Paediatric Neurology Association collaboration used the JLA PSP methodology. This consisted of two surveys to stakeholders: survey 1 (to identify uncertainties) and survey 2 (a prioritization survey). The final top 10 priorities were agreed by consensus in a stakeholder workshop.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-two charities and partner organizations were invited to participate. In survey 1, 701 participants (70% non-clinicians, including CYP and parent and caregivers) submitted 1800 uncertainties from which 44 uncertainties were identified for prioritization in survey 2; from these, 1451 participants (83% non-clinicians) selected their top 10 priorities. An unweighted amalgamated score across participant roles was used to select 26. In the final workshop, 14 health care professionals, 11 parent and caregivers, and two CYP ranked the 26 questions to finalize the top 10 priorities. Ten top priority questions were identified regarding interventions to treat CYP with CNCs and their associated comorbidities, for example, sleep, emotional well-being, and distressing symptoms.

INTERPRETATION

The results of this study will inform research into the effectiveness of interventions for children with neurological conditions.

Comparative Outcomes of Levetiracetam and Phenobarbital Usage in the Treatment of Neonatal Seizures: A Retrospective Analysis

OBJECTIVES AND AIM

The primary aim of this study was to conduct a comparative analysis of the safety and efficacy of levetiracetam (LEV) and phenobarbital (PB) as first-line treatments for neonatal seizure management. This study was designed to measure and compare the incidence of adverse effects and to determine the discharge and mortality rates associated with the use of these antiseizure medications (ASMs). Through this comparison, this research sought to provide insights to optimise care for neonates experiencing seizures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study evaluated 104 neonates treated for seizures at Zeynep Kamil Hospital from 2015 to 2020 after excluding those on non-PB/LEV antiseizure medications. Seizures were characterised using electroencephalogram (EEG) and categorised according to aetiology and frequency. Treatment efficacy was gauged by seizure cessation, as confirmed using EEG. Adverse effects and demographic data were recorded. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS, employing the Shapiro-Wilk, independent t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, and chi-square test, with a significance threshold of p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Overall, 104 neonates treated with first-line ASM were evaluated for efficacy; PB was administered in 68.26% of the cases, while LEV was utilised in 31.74%. The total complete response rate was 40.38%, with no significant difference between the PB and LEV groups (p = 0.309). The incidence rate ratios (IRRs) demonstrated that seizure frequency profoundly influenced treatment effectiveness, with IRRs of 2.09 for rare seizures, 3.25 for frequent seizures, and 4.01 for status epilepticus, indicating a higher treatment response rate with increasing seizure frequency. For second-line treatment, among a subset of 62 patients, PB had a slight, non-significant advantage over LEV, with an odds ratio of 1.09, suggesting a marginally better response to LEV. Adverse events were significantly more frequent in the PB group, affecting 19 of 67 neonates (28.36%), compared to only 2 of 71 neonates (2.82%) in the LEV group (p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in the discharge rates between the two groups (PB, 67.61%; LEV, 75.76%; p = 0.674). Interestingly, the mortality rate was significantly higher in the LEV group (45.45%) than that in the PB group (22.54%; p = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

This study underscores LEV's superior safety profile over PB in neonatal seizure management, evidenced by a significantly lower rate of adverse events. PB seems to be more effective in the second-line treatment of neonatal seizures. Despite the lack of significant differences in the discharge rates, the higher mortality rate associated with LEV warrants further investigation. These findings advocate the cautious selection of antiepileptic drugs in neonatal care, with a preference for LEV based on its safety profile.

Sources of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variability and clinical pharmacology studies of antiseizure medications in the pediatric population

Multiple treatment options exist for children with epilepsy, including surgery, dietary therapies, neurostimulation, and antiseizure medications (ASMs). ASMs are the first line of therapy, and more than 30 ASMs have U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for the treatment of various epilepsy and seizure types in children. Given the extensive FDA approval of ASMs in children, it is crucial to consider how the physiological and developmental changes throughout childhood may impact drug disposition. Various sources of pharmacokinetic (PK) variability from different extrinsic and intrinsic factors such as patients' size, age, drug-drug interactions, and drug formulation could result in suboptimal dosing of ASMs. Barriers exist to conducting clinical pharmacological studies in neonates, infants, and children due to ethical and practical reasons, limiting available data to fully characterize these drugs' disposition and better elucidate sources of PK variability. Modeling and simulation offer ways to circumvent traditional and intensive clinical pharmacology methods to address gaps in epilepsy and seizure management in children. This review discusses various physiological and developmental changes that influence the PK and pharmacodynamic (PD) variability of ASMs in children, and several key ASMs will be discussed in detail. We will also review novel trial designs in younger pediatric populations, highlight the role of extrapolation of efficacy in epilepsy, and the use of physiologically based PK modeling as a tool to investigate sources of PK/PD variability in children. Finally, we will conclude with current challenges and future directions for optimizing the efficacy and safety of these drugs across the pediatric age spectrum.

Questions and Controversies in Neonatal Seizures

Neonatal seizures are relatively common, but their diagnosis and management remain challenging. We reviewed the scientific literature on neonatal seizures from July 1973 to November 2023. Several parameters were considered, including pathophysiology, diagnostic criteria, electroencephalographic findings and treatment. Recent classification system of seizures and epilepsies in the newborn, as well as treatment recommendations of neonatal seizures, have been proposed. Nonetheless, the approach to neonatal seizures varies among clinicians and centres, including detection, investigation, treatment and follow-up of patients. There are still many issues on the diagnosis and treatment of neonatal seizures, including the meaning or relevance of some electroencephalographic findings, the precise estimation of the seizure burden, the limited efficacy and side effects risk of antiseizure medications, and the best measures to establish the outcome.

Anti-seizure medications for neonates with seizures

BACKGROUND

Newborn infants are more prone to seizures than older children and adults. The neuronal injury caused by seizures in neonates often results in long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae. There are several options for anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in neonates. However, the ideal choice of first-, second- and third-line ASM is still unclear. Further, many other aspects of seizure management such as whether ASMs should be initiated for only-electrographic seizures and how long to continue the ASM once seizure control is achieved are elusive.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess whether any ASM is more or less effective than an alternative ASM (both ASMs used as first-, second- or third-line treatment) in achieving seizure control and improving neurodevelopmental outcomes in neonates with seizures. We analysed EEG-confirmed seizures and clinically-diagnosed seizures separately. 2. To assess maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy after achieving seizure control. We analysed EEG-confirmed seizures and clinically-diagnosed seizures separately. 3. To assess treatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures versus treatment of clinical seizures alone in neonates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Epistemonikos and three databases in May 2022 and June 2023. These searches were not limited other than by study design to trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included neonates with EEG-confirmed or clinically diagnosed seizures and compared (1) any ASM versus an alternative ASM, (2) maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy, and (3) treatment of clinical or EEG seizures versus treatment of clinical seizures alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed trial eligibility, risk of bias and independently extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence interval (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 trials (1342 infants) in this review. Phenobarbital versus levetiracetam as first-line ASM in EEG-confirmed neonatal seizures (one trial) Phenobarbital is probably more effective than levetiracetam in achieving seizure control after first loading dose (RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.63 to 3.30; 106 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and after maximal loading dose (RR 2.83, 95% CI 1.78 to 4.50; 106 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, we are uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital when compared to levetiracetam on mortality before discharge (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.52; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence), requirement of mechanical ventilation (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.91; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence), sedation/drowsiness (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.68 to 4.44; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and epilepsy post-discharge (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.76; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report on mortality or neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months. Phenobarbital versus phenytoin as first-line ASM in EEG-confirmed neonatal seizures (one trial) We are uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital versus phenytoin on achieving seizure control after maximal loading dose of ASM (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.72; 59 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report on mortality or neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months. Maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy in clinically diagnosed neonatal seizures (two trials) We are uncertain about the effect of short-term maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy during the hospital stay (but discontinued before discharge) on the risk of repeat seizures before hospital discharge (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.01; 373 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Maintenance therapy with ASM compared to no maintenance therapy may have little or no effect on mortality before discharge (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.22; 373 participants; low-certainty evidence), mortality at 18 to 24 months (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.61; 111 participants; low-certainty evidence), neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.12; 108 participants; low-certainty evidence) and epilepsy post-discharge (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 14.72; 126 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures versus treatment of clinical seizures alone in neonates (two trials) Treatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures when compared to treating clinical seizures alone may have little or no effect on seizure burden during hospitalisation (MD -1871.16, 95% CI -4525.05 to 782.73; 68 participants; low-certainty evidence), mortality before discharge (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.27; 68 participants; low-certainty evidence) and epilepsy post-discharge (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.73; 35 participants; low-certainty evidence). The trials did not report on mortality or neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months. We report data from the most important comparisons here; readers are directed to Results and Summary of Findings tables for all comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Phenobarbital as a first-line ASM is probably more effective than levetiracetam in achieving seizure control after the first loading dose and after the maximal loading dose of ASM (moderate-certainty evidence). Phenobarbital + bumetanide may have little or no difference in achieving seizure control when compared to phenobarbital alone (low-certainty evidence). Limited data and very low-certainty evidence preclude us from drawing any reasonable conclusion on the effect of using one ASM versus another on other short- and long-term outcomes. In neonates who achieve seizure control after the first loading dose of phenobarbital, maintenance therapy compared to no maintenance ASM may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality before discharge, mortality by 18 to 24 months, neurodevelopmental disability by 18 to 24 months and epilepsy post-discharge (low-certainty evidence). In neonates with hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy, treatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures when compared to treating clinical seizures alone may have little or no effect on seizure burden during hospitalisation, all-cause mortality before discharge and epilepsy post-discharge (low-certainty evidence). All findings of this review apply only to term and late preterm neonates. We need well-designed RCTs for each of the three objectives of this review to improve the precision of the results. These RCTs should use EEG to diagnose seizures and should be adequately powered to assess long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. We need separate RCTs evaluating the choice of ASM in preterm infants.

Treatment of seizures in the neonate: Guidelines and consensus-based recommendations-Special report from the ILAE Task Force on Neonatal Seizures

Seizures are common in neonates, but there is substantial management variability. The Neonatal Task Force of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) developed evidence-based recommendations about antiseizure medication (ASM) management in neonates in accordance with ILAE standards. Six priority questions were formulated, a systematic literature review and meta-analysis were performed, and results were reported following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 standards. Bias was evaluated using the Cochrane tool and risk of Bias in non-randomised studies - of interventions (ROBINS-I), and quality of evidence was evaluated using grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE). If insufficient evidence was available, then expert opinion was sought using Delphi consensus methodology. The strength of recommendations was defined according to the ILAE Clinical Practice Guidelines development tool. There were six main recommendations. First, phenobarbital should be the first-line ASM (evidence-based recommendation) regardless of etiology (expert agreement), unless channelopathy is likely the cause for seizures (e.g., due to family history), in which case phenytoin or carbamazepine should be used. Second, among neonates with seizures not responding to first-line ASM, phenytoin, levetiracetam, midazolam, or lidocaine may be used as a second-line ASM (expert agreement). In neonates with cardiac disorders, levetiracetam may be the preferred second-line ASM (expert agreement). Third, following cessation of acute provoked seizures without evidence for neonatal-onset epilepsy, ASMs should be discontinued before discharge home, regardless of magnetic resonance imaging or electroencephalographic findings (expert agreement). Fourth, therapeutic hypothermia may reduce seizure burden in neonates with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (evidence-based recommendation). Fifth, treating neonatal seizures (including electrographic-only seizures) to achieve a lower seizure burden may be associated with improved outcome (expert agreement). Sixth, a trial of pyridoxine may be attempted in neonates presenting with clinical features of vitamin B6-dependent epilepsy and seizures unresponsive to second-line ASM (expert agreement). Additional considerations include a standardized pathway for the management of neonatal seizures in each neonatal unit and informing parents/guardians about the diagnosis of seizures and initial treatment options.

Levetiracetam and Midazolam vs Midazolam Alone for First-Line Treatment of Children With Generalized Convulsive Status Epilepticus (Lev-Mid Study): A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Benzodiazepines are the first-line anti-seizure medication (ASM) for generalized convulsive status epilepticus (GCSE), but they fail to end seizures in a third of cases. Combining benzodiazepines with another ASM that acts by a different pathway could be a potential strategy for rapid control of GCSE.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of adding levetiracetam to midazolam in the initial treatment of pediatric GCSE.

DESIGN

Double-blind randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Pediatric emergency room at Sohag University Hospital between June, 2021 and August, 2022.

PARTICIPANTS

Children aged between 1 month and 16 years with GCSE lasting more than 5 min.

INTERVENTIONS

Intravenous levetiracetam (60 mg/kg over 5 min) and midazolam (Lev-Mid group) or placebo and midazolam (Pla-Mid group) as first-line anticonvulsive therapy.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary: cessation of clinical seizures at 20-min study time point. Secondary: cessation of clinical seizures at 40-min study time point, need for a second midazolam dose, seizure control at 24-hr, need for intubation, and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Cessation of clinical seizures at 20-min occurred in 55 children (76%) in Lev-Mid group compared with 50 (69%) in the Pla-Mid group [RR (95% CI) 1.1 (0.9-1.34); P=0.35]. No significant difference was found between the two groups regarding the need for a second midazolam dose [44.4% vs 55.6%; RR (95% CI) 0.8 (0.58-1.11); P=0.18] as well as cessation of clinical seizures at 40-min [96% vs 92%; RR (95% CI)1.05 (0.96-1.14); P=0.49] and seizure control at 24-hr [85% vs 76%; RR (95% CI) 1.12 (0.94-1.3); P=0.21]. Intubation was required for three patients in the Lev-Mid group and six patients in the Pla-Mid group [RR (95%CI) 0.5 (0.13- 1.92); P=0.49]. No other adverse effects or mortality were observed during the 24-hour study timeframe.

CONCLUSION

Combined levetiracetam and midazolam for initial management of pediatric GCSE presents no significant advantage over midazolam alone in cessation of clinical seizures at 20-min.

Levetiracetam versus Phenobarbital for Neonatal Seizures: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Although phenobarbital (PB) is commonly used as a first-line antiseizure medication (ASM) for neonatal seizures, in 2015 we chose to replace it with levetiracetam (LEV), a third-generation ASM. Here, we compared the safety and efficacy of LEV and PB as first-line ASM, considering the years before and after modifying our treatment protocol.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 108 neonates with electroencephalography (EEG)-confirmed seizures treated with first-line LEV or PB in 2012 to 2020.

RESULTS

First-line ASM was LEV in 33 (31%) and PB in 75 (69%) neonates. The etiology included acute symptomatic seizures in 69% of cases (30% hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, 32% structural vascular, 6% infectious, otherwise metabolic) and neonatal epilepsy in 22% (5% structural due to brain malformation, 17% genetic). Forty-two of 108 (39%) neonates reached seizure freedom following first-line therapy. Treatment response did not vary by first-line ASM among all neonates, those with acute symptomatic seizures, or those with neonatal-onset epilepsy. Treatment response was lowest for neonates with a higher seizure frequency, particularly for those with status epilepticus versus rare seizures (P < 0.001), irrespective of gestational age, etiology, or EEG findings. Adverse events were noted in 22 neonates treated with PB and in only one treated with LEV (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests a potential noninferiority and a more acceptable safety profile for LEV, which may thus be a reasonable option as first-line ASM for neonatal seizures in place of PB. Treatment should be initiated as early as possible since higher seizure frequencies predispose to less favorable responses.

Isolated ictal apnea in neonatal age: Clinical features and treatment options. A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Among autonomic seizures apnea still represent a challenge for physicians, and it might constitute the only isolated sign of neurological disorder. The aim of this review is to describe ictal apnea (IA) and its treatment options.

METHODS

MeSH and keywords were combined: "neonatal seizures", "ictal neonatal apnea", "apneic seizures". All identified papers were screened for neonatal seizures titles and abstracts; case reports describing patients with IA as an isolated manifestation of neonatal seizures were included.

RESULTS

Eight studies including a total of 13 patients were identified. Among 13 patients, 9 were full-term and 4 were preterm neonates. All patients developed IA within twenty-one days from birth. Etiologies of seizures included: temporal lobe hemorrhage (3 pt), occipital stroke (1 pt), hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) (1 pt), parasagittal injury (1 pt), 18 trisomy (2 pt). Five patients showed no structural CNS alterations. Ten patients had the ictal focus localized in the temporal lobe; the occipital lobe was the second most involved site. Phenobarbital was administered in 76 % of cases with IA (10 pt), and showed efficacy in 74 % of them; 2 required a second anti-epileptic drug (AED) to reach seizure control. Levetiracetam was given to 11 % (2 pt) successfully. Only one was treated with midazolam and one did not require any anticonvulsant.

CONCLUSIONS

Not homogeneous data and paucity of isolated IA currently reported in literature limits agreement about definition, management and treatment of entity, however an ever-growing attention is needed, and EEG/aEEG, despite their possible controversies in the diagnosis, should be performed to investigate unexplained forms of apnea.

Efficacy of levetiracetam in STXBP1 encephalopathy with different phenotypic and genetic spectra

OBJECTIVE

Syntaxin binding protein 1 (STXBP1) plays an important role in the release of synaptic vesicles. STXBP1-related encephalopathy is a brain dysfunction caused by STXBP1 variation. Levetiracetam (LEV) exerts antiepileptic effects by binding to synaptic vesicle protein 2A (SV2A). This study aimed to analyze the prognosis of LEV treatment of STXBP1 encephalopathy (STXBP1-E) and the correlation among genotype, phenotype, and LEV efficacy.

METHODS

Patients with pathogenic STXBP1 variants were collected from multiple centers, and their clinical history, video electroencephalogram (vEEG) characteristics, imaging examination data, and anti-seizure medication (ASM) history were systematically analyzed. The ASMs related to the prognosis were explored.

RESULTS

Forty patients with STXBP1-E were enrolled in this study. The detailed ASM usage of 37 patients was recorded without intervening in ASM selection. At the endpoint of six months treatment, the results of Fisher's exact test showed that in all ASMs, LEV affected the prognosis of patients with STXBP1-E. LEV was effective in improving the partial remission rate but did not achieve seizure freedom. However, LEV monotherapy could achieve seizure freedom in patients with other early-onset epileptic and encephalopathy. For refractory West syndrome (WS) or Ohtahara syndrome (OS), LEV combined with other ASMs could improve the seizure remission rate.

CONCLUSION

LEV increased the seizure reduction rate and improved the vEEG characteristics in patients with STXBP1-E, but not seizure freedom. LEV combined with other ASMs could increase the seizure reduction rate, especially for refractory WS or OS. Thus, LEV could be considered after identifying the pathogenicity of STXBP1 variants.

Efficacy and Safety of Levetiracetam vs. Phenobarbital for Neonatal Seizures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Neonatal seizures are a common neurological emergency in newborns. Phenobarbital (PB) is the first-line antiepileptic drug (AED). However, PB has some side effects, such as hypotension and respiratory depression, and it can accelerate neuronal apoptosis in the immature brain. Levetiracetam (LEV), a new antiepileptic drug, has been used as a second-line drug for the treatment of neonatal seizures. Compared with PB, LEV has many advantages, including a low incidence of side effects and better neurodevelopmental outcomes. However, there are only a few systematic reviews of LEV for the treatment of neonatal seizures. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of LEV for neonatal seizures and to compare the efficacy, side effects, and neurological outcomes between LEV and PB in the treatment of neonatal seizures. Methods: The keywords LEV, PB, and neonatal seizure were searched in the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, clinicaltrials.gov, and China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI) databases with a last update in July 2021 to collect high-quality studies. We collected studies studying the efficacy or safety of LEV and PB in the treatment of neonatal seizures applying strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data were extracted and outcome measures, including efficacy, side effect rate, neurological score, and mortality rate, were analyzed with RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Ten articles were finally included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that there was no difference in efficacy between LEV and PB in the treatment of neonatal seizures. Compared with PB, the incidence of side effects of LEV was lower. The incidence of hypotension and respiratory depression in the LEV group was significantly lower than that in the PB group. In terms of long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes, there was no significant difference in the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) scores between LEV and PB. Conclusion: PB is still the first-line AED recommended by the WHO for the treatment of neonatal seizures. The new AEDs LEV may not have better efficacy than PB. At the same time, LEV is associated with better neurodevelopment outcomes and a lower risk of adverse effects. In addition, continuous EEG monitoring should be used to diagnose neonatal seizures to evaluate the severity of the seizures, remission, and drug efficacy. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42021279029.

Treating Seizures after Hypoxic-Ischemic Encephalopathy-Current Controversies and Future Directions

Seizures are common in newborn infants with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy and are highly associated with adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes. The impact of seizure activity on the developing brain and the most effective way to manage these seizures remain surprisingly poorly understood, particularly in the era of therapeutic hypothermia. Critically, the extent to which seizures exacerbate brain injury or merely reflect the underlying evolution of injury is unclear. Current anticonvulsants, such as phenobarbital and phenytoin have poor efficacy and preclinical studies suggest that most anticonvulsants are associated with adverse effects on the developing brain. Levetiracetam seems to have less potential neurotoxic effects than other anticonvulsants but may not be more effective. Given that therapeutic hypothermia itself has significant anticonvulsant effects, randomized controlled trials of anticonvulsants combined with therapeutic hypothermia, are required to properly determine the safety and efficacy of these drugs. Small clinical studies suggest that prophylactic phenobarbital administration may improve neurodevelopmental outcomes compared to delayed administration; however, larger high-quality studies are required to confirm this. In conclusion, there is a distinct lack of high-quality evidence for whether and to what extent neonatal seizures exacerbate brain damage after hypoxia-ischemia and how best to manage them in the era of therapeutic hypothermia.