Comparison of levetiracetam versus phenytoin/fosphenytoin for busulfan seizure prophylaxis at a pediatric institution

Impact of prophylactic echinocandin on the development of neurological complications in patients receiving busulfan-containing conditioning regimens for stem cell transplantation: A single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Although neurotoxicity is a major adverse event associated with busulfan, little information is available regarding the association between drug interactions and neurological symptoms during busulfan-based regimens. This study evaluated the association between prophylactic echinocandins and neurological complications in patients receiving busulfan-containing conditioning regimens for stem cell transplantation.

METHODS

We retrospectively included consecutive patients who administered intravenous busulfan as a conditioning regimen at our facility between 2007 and 2022. Prophylactic echinocandin use was defined as the use of an echinocandin antifungal drug to prevent invasive fungal disease in SCT recipients. The primary outcome was the incidence of neurological complications within 7 days of busulfan initiation and was compared between the echinocandin group (patients received prophylactic echinocandin) and nonechinocandin group (patients received prophylactic antifungal drugs other than echinocandin and those without antifungal prophylaxis).

RESULTS

Among the 59 patients included in this study, the incidence of neurological complications in the echinocandin (n = 26) and nonechinocandin groups (n = 33) was 30.8% and 63.6%, respectively. We observed a negative association between prophylactic echinocandin use and the development of neurological complications after adjusting for the propensity score for receiving prophylactic echinocandins (adjusted odds ratio 0.294, 95% confidence interval 0.090 to 0.959). We observed a lower incidence of neurological complications in the echinocandin group than in the nonechinocandin group.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggested that the choice of antifungal prophylaxis is associated with busulfan neurotoxicity.

Individualizing busulfan dose in specific populations and evaluating the risk of pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions

INTRODUCTION

Busulfan is an alkylating agent widely used in the conditioning of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation possessing a complex metabolism and a large interindividual and intra-individual variability, especially in children. Combined with the strong rationale of busulfan PK/PD relationships, factors altering its clearance (e.g., weight, age, and GST-A genetic polymorphism mainly) can also affect clinical outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to provide an overview of the current knowledge on busulfan pharmacokinetics, its pharmacokinetics variabilities in pediatric populations, drug-drug interactions (DDI), and their consequences regarding dose individualization. This review was based on medical literature up until October 2021.

EXPERT OPINION

To ensure effective busulfan exposure in pediatrics, different weight-based nomograms have been established to determine busulfan dosage and provided improved results (65 - 80% of patients correctly exposed). In addition to nomograms, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of busulfan measuring plasmatic concentrations to estimate busulfan pharmacokinetic parameters can be used. TDM is now widely carried out in routine practices and aims to ensure the targeting of the reported therapeutic windows by individualizing busulfan dosing based on the clearance estimations from a previous dose.

Optimal regimen of levetiracetam for prevention of busulfan-induced seizure in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A review of available evidence

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to summarize the available data and offer a practical recommendation regarding the optimal regimen of levetiracetam (LEV) for the prevention of busulfan-induced seizure (BIS) in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

DATA SOURCES

Published articles by searching databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect) were reviewed. All types of original studies performed in pediatric and adult populations have been investigated and required data was extracted.

DATA SUMMARY

Eleven articles were eligible to be included in this review. A loading dose was not used in any of the studies. LEV had been started from 6 to 48 h before busulfan (Bu) initiation and continued up to 24 to 48 h after its termination. The dose range of LEV was 10 to 20 mg/kg/day divided every 12 h in pediatrics and 500 to 1000 mg twice daily in adults. Both oral and intravenous (IV) routes of administration were used. Except for three studies, no seizure had occurred in patients who had received LEV.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the available evidence, LEV with the dose range from 500 to 1000 mg twice daily in adults and 10 mg/kg twice daily (20 mg/kg/day in 2 divided doses) in children orally or IV started from 6 to 24 h before Bu initiation up to 24 to 48 h after the last dose of Bu seems to prevent BIS appropriately. More prospective clinical trials with a larger population are needed to validate the optimal dosing of LEV for BIS prophylaxis in patients undergoing HSCT.

Pharmacokinetic considerations surrounding the use of levetiracetam for seizure prophylaxis in neurocritical care - an overview

INTRODUCTION

Levetiracetam (LEV) is one of the most widely used anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in clinical practice. This is due both to a different mechanism of action when compared to other ASMs and its easy handling. Indeed, because of its interesting pharmacokinetic properties, it is often used outside of the labelled indications, notably in the neurocritical setting as prophylaxis of epileptic seizures.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search was conducted and the most relevant studies on the pharmacokinetic properties of LEV were selected by two independent investigators. Current evidence on the use of ASM prophylaxis in the neurocritical setting was also reviewed, highlighting and discussing the strengths and limits of LEV as drug of choice for anti-epileptic prophylaxis in this scenario.

EXPERT OPINION

LEV has a "near-ideal" pharmacokinetic profile, which makes it an attractive drug for ASM prophylaxis in neurocritical care. However, current recommendations restrict ASMs prophylaxis to very selected circumstances and the role of LEV is marginal. Moreover, studies are generally designed to compare LEV versus phenytoin, whereas studies comparing LEV versus placebo are lacking. Further randomized trials will be needed to better elucidate LEV utility and its neuroprotective role in the neurocritical setting.

Levetiracetam Mechanisms of Action: From Molecules to Systems

Epilepsy is a chronic disease that affects millions of people worldwide. Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are used to control seizures. Even though parts of their mechanisms of action are known, there are still components that need to be studied. Therefore, the search for novel drugs, new molecular targets, and a better understanding of the mechanisms of action of existing drugs is still crucial. Levetiracetam (LEV) is an AED that has been shown to be effective in seizure control and is well-tolerable, with a novel mechanism of action through an interaction with the synaptic vesicle protein 2A (SV2A). Moreover, LEV has other molecular targets that involve calcium homeostasis, the GABAergic system, and AMPA receptors among others, that might be integrated into a single mechanism of action that could explain the antiepileptogenic, anti-inflammatory, neuroprotective, and antioxidant properties of LEV. This puts it as a possible multitarget drug with clinical applications other than for epilepsy. According to the above, the objective of this work was to carry out a comprehensive and integrative review of LEV in relation to its clinical uses, structural properties, therapeutical targets, and different molecular, genetic, and systemic action mechanisms in order to consider LEV as a candidate for drug repurposing.