Rapid infusion of a loading dose of intravenous levetiracetam with minimal dilution: a safety study

Subcutaneous Bolus Infusions of Undiluted Levetiracetam for End-of-Life Patients: Two Cases

We present two cases, in which end-of-life patients were inadvertently treated with bolus infusions of undiluted subcutaneous levetiracetam. The patients were treated for three and four days respectively. In both cases, the course of treatment was uneventful. Especially, no seizures, nor local irritation was observed. Administration of undiluted subcutaneous levetiracetam as intermittent bolus infusions by hand holds alluring properties for end-of-life patients. Amongst others reducing patient discomfort, increasing freedom of movement, and accessibility to essential seizure prophylaxis by eliminating the need for a syringe driver, thereby helping accommodate many patients wish to die in their own home. However, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety, including the optimum dilution and administration time of the subcutaneous preparation remains to be determined in clinically controlled trials.

Determining the Safety and Tolerability of Rapid Administration of Undiluted Intravenous Levetiracetam in Pediatrics

Objective: Levetiracetam is widely used in the emergency setting. Safety and tolerability of undiluted levetiracetam is prevalent in adults but is limited in pediatrics. The purpose is to determine the safety and tolerability of rapid administration of undiluted levetiracetam in pediatric patients. Methods: A retrospective, single-center, observational study was conducted in pediatric patients who received undiluted levetiracetam intravenous push. The primary outcome was adverse reactions, extravasation, need for intravenous line replacement, and discontinuation due to adverse reactions. The secondary outcome was turnaround time between ordering and administering first doses. Results: One hundred fourteen patients were included. Injection site reactions occurred in 7 patients. Extravasation occurred in 4 patients. Two patients required intravenous line replacement. There were no adverse events leading to discontinuation of levetiracetam. No difference was seen in the time from order to administration. Conclusion: Rapid administration of undiluted levetiracetam in pediatric patients was safe and well tolerated.

An Emergency Department Quality Improvement Project for Intravenous Levetiracetam Administration

Background: Levetiracetam is a readily available, safe anticonvulsive medication. It is frequently administered as IV piggyback with a pump, carrier fluid, and tubing. The Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial demonstrated levetiracetam being similarly effective to previously used treatments in doses up to 4500 mg administered over 10 minutes. Objective: We sought to compare usage, cost, and waste of IV piggyback with IV push administration of levetiractam following implementation of an IV push protocol in an academic emergency department. Methods: A three-month review of levetiracetam administration was done following protocol implementation using IV push for initial treatment of benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus. The review quantified the number of IV push vs IV piggyback doses for all indications and evaluated cost of supplies necessary for administration. Results: During the study period, 137 patients received 142 doses of IV levetiracetam. Fifty-one doses (36%) were given as IV push rather than IV piggyback. The majority of doses 116 (82%) were 1000-2000 mg and 11 doses (8%) 3500-4500 mg. Estimated three-month savings with complete transition of IV piggyback to IV push would exceed $6000 just in our ED. The amount of sterile solution carrier fluid was also reduced and IV pump time freed. Conclusion: Implementation of an emergency department IV push levetiracetam protocol resulted in cost savings. Opportunities remain to improve clinical implementation practices. Medication administration represents one crucial target area where healthcare systems can implement policies to reduce waste and commit to climate-smart health care.

Rapid administration of undiluted loading doses of levetiracetam

OBJECTIVE

Rapid administration of antiseizure medications is a critical concept in the treatment of status epilepticus. Although undiluted levetiracetam (LEV) doses of up to 2500 mg have been evaluated, minimal data exist to support the safety of loading doses up to 4500 mg. This study will evaluate intravenous (IV) push administration of undiluted LEV from 2500 to 4500 mg for safety outcomes as well as tolerability.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, observational, cohort analysis of adult patients who received at least one loading dose of undiluted IV push LEV from October 15, 2019, to April 30, 2022, at a large academic medical center in Phoenix, Arizona. Relevant outcomes include the safety and tolerability of rapid administration of undiluted LEV at higher loading doses.

RESULTS

We evaluated 518 loading doses in 518 unique patients included during the study period. LEV was a new medication for witnessed or suspected seizures in 80.3% of patients, with 31.2% having a documented history of epilepsy or seizure disorder. At the time of LEV administration, 52.9% of patients were on a general medicine floor, 34.3% were in the intensive care unit, and 12.7% were in the emergency department. The median loading dose of LEV was 3600 mg (3000-4000 mg), with 4000 mg being the most common loading dose given. Peripheral IV lines were documented as the only available line in 78.6% of patients for loading dose administration. No adverse events associated with LEV administration were documented.

SIGNIFICANCE

Rapid IV administration of undiluted doses of LEV is both safe and tolerable in loading doses of 2500-4500 mg, allowing for rapid drug administration in the setting of status epilepticus.

Evaluation of the safety and tolerability of intravenous undiluted levetiracetam at a pediatric institution

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Recent studies suggest rapid administration of high-dose, undiluted levetiracetam is safe in adults; however, no information exists in pediatric patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of undiluted levetiracetam at a pediatric institution.

DESIGN

Retrospective, single-center, cohort study.

SETTING

Pediatric Academic Medical Center.

PATIENTS

All patients who received high-dose >60 mg/kg (-10%) up to 4500 mg undiluted or diluted intravenous levetiracetam were included.

INTERVENTION

Rapid intravenous administration of undiluted versus diluted levetiracetam.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 776 levetiracetam doses were included, 358 doses administered and 418 doses wasted. The doses administered (61 undiluted and 297 diluted) accounted for a total of 252 patients (39 received undiluted, and 213 received diluted levetiracetam) (median [minimum-maximum range] age, 2 years [1 day to 32.7 years]; mean (standard deviation [SD]) weight, 20.1 kg [22.1 kg]). The incidence of hemodynamic disturbances and infusion-related reactions was not statistically significant between undiluted (24.6%) and diluted (26.3%) groups (p = 0.87). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) time difference between first-line antiseizure medication and levetiracetam administration in patients with status epilepticus was 18 min (10.5-30.5) in the undiluted group versus 36.5 min (21.8-67.3) in the diluted group (p < 0.01). Additionally, there was a significant amount of drug waste from dispensed but not administered doses of the diluted bag compared to undiluted vials (57.6% diluted vs. 18.7% undiluted, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Undiluted levetiracetam was not associated with an increased incidence of adverse effects compared to diluted levetiracetam in high-doses, up to 4500 mg given over 5 min in pediatric patients.

A review of the pharmacology and clinical applications of levetiracetam in dogs and cats

OBJECTIVE

To review and summarize the pharmacology of the antiepileptic drug (AED), levetiracetam (LEV), and to discuss its clinical utility in dogs and cats.

DATA SOURCES

Veterinary and human peer-reviewed medical literature and the authors' clinical experience.

SUMMARY

LEV is an AED with mechanisms of action distinct from those of other AEDs. In people and small animals, LEV exhibits linear kinetics, excellent oral bioavailability, and minimal drug-drug interactions. Serious side effects are rarely reported in any species. LEV use is gaining favor for treating epilepsy in small animals and may have wider clinical applications in patients with portosystemic shunts, neuroglycopenia, and traumatic brain injury. In people, LEV may improve cognitive function in patients with dementia.

CONCLUSION

LEV is a well-tolerated AED with well-documented efficacy in human patients. Although its use is becoming more common in veterinary medicine, its role as a first-line monotherapy in small animal epileptics remains to be determined. This review of the human and animal literature regarding LEV describes its role in epileptic people and animals as well as in other disease states and provides recommendations for clinical usage.

Safety and Tolerability of Intravenous Push Lacosamide and Levetiracetam

Background: Lacosamide and levetiracetam are antiseizure medications (ASMs) commonly utilized in the treatment and prevention of seizures. Historically, these agents have been administered as slow IV infusions after further dilution. Recent literature suggests that rapid administration via undiluted IV push may be safe and may increase efficiency of administration. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of undiluted IV push lacosamide and levetiracetam over 5 min. Methods: This study was conducted as a single-centered, retrospective, observational cohort that analyzed the rapid administration of undiluted lacosamide and levetiracetam. Adult patients admitted from September 1st, 2019, to May 31st, 2020, receiving at least one administration of IV push lacosamide at any dose or levetiracetam at doses ≤ 1500 mg were evaluated. The primary safety outcomes were the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia. Results: A total of 86 subjects were evaluated; 36 patients were administered lacosamide, and 50 patients were administered levetiracetam. Hypotension or bradycardia occurred in 6 patients in the lacosamide group (16.6%) and 6 patients in the levetiracetam group (12.0%). There were no reported infusion site reactions. Among the subjects who received lacosamide and had a 12-lead electrocardiogram (EKG), there were no reported incidences of a prolonged PR interval. Conclusions: In this safety-analysis cohort, undiluted lacosamide and levetiracetam were not associated with significant adverse events when administered via IV push over 5 min. This seems to be a safe alternative method of administration to intermittent infusion. A larger, prospective cohort is needed to confirm these findings.

Suboptimal Dosing of Benzodiazepines and Levetiracetam in a Cohort of Status Epilepticus Patients and Outcomes Associated with Inadequate Dosing

Background: Status epilepticus (SE) is a neurologic emergency that can result in serious morbidity and mortality. Recent studies have suggested underdosing of both benzodiazepines (BZDs) and antiseizure medications (ASM) which may result in poorer outcomes. Objectives: This study aims to determine the dose of BZDs and levetiracetam given in our emergency department for episodes of SE and determine the outcomes associated with this dosing. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all adult patients with SE admitted to our hospital from 2017 to 2020. We collected demographic data, type of SE, dose of BZD and levetiracetam, and outcomes which included mortality and a calculated Glasgow outcome scale (GOS). We compared outcomes of patients with SE who received adequate dosing (according to practice guidelines) to those who did not. Results: 111 adult patients were included of whom 91% were seen initially in our emergency department. 75% had convulsive SE on presentation. Approximately 55% and 68% of patients did not receive an appropriate dose of BZD or levetiracetam, respectively. Inadequate dosing of BZD was associated with worse clinical outcomes based on GOS (43.6% favorable outcome vs 62.5% with adequate dosing P = .046 (95% CI, 1.01-4.60)) and inadequate dosing of both drugs was also associated with a worse GOS outcome (HR, 2.91 (95% CI, 1.05-9.67, P = .02). No difference was found in length of stay or mortality alone. Conclusion: Our study found inadequate dosing of drugs to treat SE in adults was common in our institution and was associated with worse outcomes.

Diagnosing nonconvulsive status epilepticus: Defining electroencephalographic and clinical response to diagnostic intravenous antiseizure medication trials

OBJECTIVE

The Salzburg criteria for nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) and the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society (ACNS) Standardized Critical Care EEG Terminology 2021 include a diagnostic trial with intravenous (IV) antiseizure medications (ASMs) to assess electroencephalographic (EEG) and clinical response as a diagnostic criterion for definite NCSE and possible NCSE. However, how to perform this diagnostic test and assessing the EEG and clinical responses have not been operationally defined.

METHODS

We performed a Delphi process involving six experts to standardize the diagnostic administration of IV ASM and propose operational criteria for EEG and clinical response.

RESULTS

Either benzodiazepines (BZDs) or non-BZD ASMs can be used as first choice for a diagnostic IV ASM trial. However, non-BZDs should be considered in patients who already have impaired alertness or are at risk of respiratory depression. Levetiracetam, valproate, lacosamide, brivaracetam, or (if the only feasible drug) fosphenytoin or phenobarbital were deemed appropriate for a diagnostic IV trial. The starting dose should be approximately two thirds to three quarters of the full loading dose recommended for treatment of status epilepticus, with an additional smaller dose if needed. ASMs should be administered during EEG recording under supervision. A monitoring time of at least 15 min is recommended. If there is no response, a second trial with another non-BDZ or BDZs may be considered. A positive EEG response is defined as the resolution of the ictal-interictal continuum pattern for at least three times the longest previously observed spontaneous interval of resolution (if any), but minimum of one continuous minute. For a clinical response, physicians should use a standardized examination before and after IV ASM administration. We suggest a definite time-locked improvement in a focal deficit or at least one-step improvement on a new dedicated one-domain 10-level NCSE response scale.

SIGNIFICANCE

The proposed standardized approach of a diagnostic IV ASM trial further refines the ACNS and Salzburg diagnostic criteria for NCSE.

Safety Profile of High-Dose Intravenous Push Lacosamide

Lacosamide (LCM) is an antiseizure medication used to manage status epilepticus (SE). Previous retrospective analyses have demonstrated safety and efficiency in intravenous push (IVP) administration at 80 mg per minute. Quick administration can be achieved in a high-acuity setting without the additional time required for compounding. However, previous literature only partially represents high doses of IVP LCM, which limits the understanding of the safety profile of these doses. Our study was a single-center, retrospective, single-arm analysis of patients who received IVP LCM 300 mg or 400 mg during admission. The primary outcome was the incidence of infusion site reactions, hypotension, and bradycardia within 2 hours of IVP administration. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of PR prolongation. A total of 113 patients were evaluated for infusion site reactions. Of these, 108 patients had vital signs assessed within 2 hours of IVP LCM and could be evaluated for hypotension and bradycardia. The sample primarily consisted of LCM 400 mg IVP (85.8%). The primary outcome consisted of 7 (6.2%) infusion reactions, 12 (11.1%) hypotensive events, and no reports of bradycardia. Each adverse event was assessed using the Naranjo Adverse Drug Probability Scale. All events scored less than two, suggesting the possibility was likely related to factors other than the medication. In conclusion, LCM 300 mg and 400 mg IVP administration have the potential to facilitate more rapid treatment of seizures without additional risk of infusion site reactions, hypotension, and bradycardia.

Optimizing Status Epilepticus Management in the Emergency Department: It's About Time

Status epilepticus (SE) is a frequent medical emergency that requires expedited treatment to avoid the ensuing high incidence of morbidity and mortality associated with prolonged seizures. Protracted seizure duration itself has the potential to result in maladaptive neuronal responses that can not only further increase seizure duration and worsen clinical outcomes but also lead to reduced responsiveness to pharmacotherapy. Benzodiazepines are consistently recommended as first-line treatment due to their rapid onset and efficacy in terminating seizures, followed by the emergent administration of an antiepileptic drug (AED). Various benzodiazepine and AED options are recommended and can be utilized in this setting, all with their own unique advantages and challenges. With time at a premium, agents should be selected that can be rapidly administered and have an advantageous pharmacokinetic profile in order to limit seizure duration and optimize outcomes. The intent of this review is to provide an outline of the importance of time-to-treatment implementation in this setting, assess the landscape of options that may provide timing advantages, and examine potential strategies for deploying expeditious therapy.

Effects of levetiracetam treatment on autonomic nervous system functions in pediatric epilepsy patients

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the effects of levetiracetam (LEV) treatment on cardiac rhythm and heart rate variability.

METHODS

The study included two groups of patients diagnosed with non-lesional epilepsy who had not yet been treated and who presented to the outpatient pediatric neurology clinic at Van Training and Research Hospital, Van, Turkey, between 2019 and 2020. The heart rate variability (HRV) of 47 patients in the first group, before and at the 3rd month of treatment, and intravenous (IV) LEV loading in 13 patients in the second group was evaluated by Holter electrocardiography (ECG).

RESULTS

It was determined that the values of triangular index, standard deviation of the RR intervals over a 24-hour period (SDNN), standard deviation of all 5-minute mean RR intervals (SDANN), mean of standard deviations of all normal RR intervals (SDNNI), the percentage of RR intervals with >50-millisecond variation (PNN50), and the square root of mean squared differences of successive RR intervals (RMSSD). HRV of 47 patients under LEV treatment significantly increased in the 3rd month of treatment compared to baseline (p < 0.05). No difference was found in HRV between the intravenous loading and the control group (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that the sympathovagal balance before treatment in the patient group is in favor of the sympathetic nervous system and that the sympathovagal imbalance improves after treatment. Our results show that LEV monotherapy and loading have no negative effect on HRV and potential cardiac arrhythmia risk in children with epilepsy.

The safety of rapid infusion levetiracetam: A systematic review

Epilepsy is a common diagnosis and can quickly progress to status epilepticus which requires rapid treatment. Levetiracetam is a frequent treatment choice in these situations. The approved administration of intravenous levetiracetam is an infusion over 15 min. In recent years, studies have been published on faster infusion rates of levetiracetam. The objective of this review is to discuss the safety of levetiracetam as an intravenous push at a rate quicker than recommended. A literature search using PubMed, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar resulted in 192 articles. Inclusion criteria consisted of English language, human studies, use of levetiracetam administered intravenously at a rate faster than 15 min, discussion of safety, and full-text availability. After screening, nine articles remained for inclusion. Of the nine articles, one was a prospective, open-label study, six were retrospective studies, and two were open-label, randomized controlled trials. The most common rapid infusion speed was 5 min and doses ranged from 280 to 4500 mg. Some of these trials used undiluted levetiracetam and many reported that peripheral access was used for a portion or all of the administrations. There were few adverse effects, including specific adverse effects relating to medication concentration and speed of infusion, in all the studies. Administration of intravenous levetiracetam at a rate faster than recommended in the labeling information appears to be safe and tolerable and can be given via a peripheral line. Rapid infusion of levetiracetam is a beneficial method of administration in an acute care setting where patients need rapid attainment of therapeutic levels of antiepileptic medications. Additional research is needed to ensure that rapid administration of intravenous levetiracetam is as efficacious as the traditional dosing method.

Clinical Considerations for Rapid Administration of Undiluted or Minimally Diluted Levetiracetam Bolus Doses

INTRODUCTION

The ability to administer medications via rapid intravenous bolus has the potential to allow for the rapid attainment of therapeutic drug levels and to limit the amount of unnecessary fluid volumes infused. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of undiluted or minimally diluted levetiracetam bolus doses.

AREAS COVERED

A total of six pieces of literature were evaluated in this review. Doses up to 4,500 mg of intravenous levetiracetam were found to be both efficacious and safe when administered undiluted or minimally diluted in either a peripheral or central line. Product concentrations of levetiracetam ranged from 50 mg/mL to 100 mg/mL, with volumes ranging from 10-30 mL's. Maintenance doses of up to 1,500 mg twice daily were demonstrated to be both efficacious and safe when administered undiluted or minimally diluted. Injection site pain and agitation were the most commonly reported adverse drug effects.

EXPERT OPINION

Though hospitals and clinicians must be judicious with regard to training and the safety concerns of bolus intravenous push doses, and will need to address numerous logistical concerns, this practice is supported in practice guidelines and should be readily employed.

Safety of Intravenous Push Levetiracetam Compared to Intravenous Piggyback at a Tertiary Academic Medical Center: A Retrospective Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Medication administration via intravenous push presents multiple potential advantages; however, there may be an increased risk of adverse drug reactions. In 2020, Brigham and Women's Hospital changed levetiracetam intravenous administration to intravenous push (IVP).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this analysis was to compare the safety profile of IVP to intravenous piggyback (IVPB) levetiracetam administration.

METHODS

This institutional review board-approved, single-center, pre-post analysis was performed between 1 November, 2019 and 30 May, 2020. The electronic health record was used to identify all administrations of intravenous levetiracetam greater than 1000 mg in patients ≥ 18 years old. The major safety outcomes included hypotension, bradycardia, drug-induced sedation, and intravenous site reactions such as phlebitis and infiltration. The major efficiency outcome was the time from pharmacy order verification to first-dose administration.

RESULTS

A total of 498 administrations in 162 patients were included in the analysis: 252 administrations in 84 patients in the IVP group and 246 administrations in 78 patients in the IVPB group. The incidence of bradycardia was 7 vs 3 (3.2% vs 1.5%, p = 0.34); hypotension 10 vs 6 (5.2% vs 3.5%, p = 0.44); sedation 21 vs 36 (19.3% vs 27.9%, p = 0.12); and peripheral IV site reactions 0 vs 1 (0% vs 0.6%, p = 0.39) in the IVP vs IVPB groups, respectively. The median time between order verification and first-dose administration was significantly reduced in the IVP vs IVPB group (23.5 vs 55 min, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous push levetiracetam administration of doses up to 4000 mg was associated with a similar incidence of cardiovascular, sedation, and infusion site-related adverse events compared to IVPB and resulted in a significant reduction in time to first-dose administration. Intravenous push levetiracetam in doses as high as 4000 mg may be considered safe with appropriate monitoring.

Rapid administration of undiluted intravenous levetiracetam

OBJECTIVE

Operational delays have the potential to lead to suboptimal time to seizure control during status epilepticus. Levetiracetam (LEV) is an urgent control antiepileptic medication that offers relative lack of adverse effects and ease of monitoring. There are limited data published demonstrating safety and tolerability of undiluted rapid intravenous (IV) push of LEV in doses of 1000 mg or less. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of IV push administration of LEV doses up to 4500 mg.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, observational, cohort analysis of adult patients who received at least one dose of undiluted IV push LEV from October 15, 2019 to August 31, 2020 at a large academic medical center in Phoenix, Arizona. Outcomes of interest include safety and tolerability of rapid administration of undiluted LEV.

RESULTS

There were 953 unique patients included during the study period. LEV was a new medication for witnessed or suspected seizure in 51.9% of patients, and 40.7% of patients had a documented history of epilepsy or seizure disorder. There were 8561 undiluted IV push LEV doses administered, 3674 (42.9%) of which were greater than 1000 mg. LEV was administered most often through a peripheral IV (79.1%). There were 12 patients with documented adverse drug events during the study period, with four potentially directly related to IV push LEV administration. These events were limited to local injection site reactions and included redness, burning, and loss of a peripheral IV line.

SIGNIFICANCE

Rapid IV administration of undiluted LEV is both safe and tolerable in doses of up to 4500 mg, allowing for rapid drug administration, which is paramount during neurologic emergencies.

Evaluation of Time to Administration, Benzodiazepine Use, and Safety of Intravenous Push Levetiracetam in a Neuro-Spine Intensive Care Unit

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the time to medication administration, clinical effect, and safety of a recent Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee-approved change in the administration of levetiracetam from intravenous piggyback (IVPB) over 15 min to undiluted intravenous push (IVP) over 2-5 min at a large academic medical center.

METHODS

The primary outcome was the time from order verification to the administration of IVP levetiracetam versus IVPB levetiracetam. The secondary outcome was any benzodiazepine administered in the time between levetiracetam order verification and administration in both groups. Adult patients admitted to the neuro-spine intensive care unit in the 6 months prior to and after the policy change, and who received at least one dose of 1000 mg or higher of IVP or IVPB levetiracetam for active seizures, were included in this retrospective, observational, institutional review board-approved study. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, χ², and the Mann-Whitney U-test as appropriate.

RESULTS

Of the 2055 hospital-wide levetiracetam doses ordered within the study period, 316 doses were screened for enrollment and 160 were enrolled with 60 and 100 patients assigned to the IVP and IVPB groups, respectively. There were no differences between the groups at baseline. The majority of the population was male, 57 years old, had no significant renal dysfunction (defined as a creatinine clearance of less than 60 ml/min), and had a seizure etiology of malignancy or traumatic brain injury. A significant reduction in the time to administration of levetiracetam was found with IVP compared with IVPB administration (28 vs. 80 min, p < 0.0001). A subsequent reduction in patients who received benzodiazepines in the interim of levetiracetam order verification and administration was also associated with IVP compared with IVPB (2% vs. 13%, p = 0.042). There were no differences found in the rates of adverse effects between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of levetiracetam doses up to 2000 mg via IVP is a safe method of administration that results in a reduction of time to medication administration and a reduction of benzodiazepine use.

A pharmacokinetic simulation study to assess the performance of a sparse blood sampling approach to quantify early drug exposure

Estimating early exposure of drugs used for the treatment of emergent conditions is challenging because blood sampling to measure concentrations is difficult. The objective of this work was to evaluate predictive performance of two early concentrations and prior pharmacokinetic (PK) information for estimating early exposure. The performance of a modeling approach was compared with a noncompartmental analysis (NCA). A simulation study was performed using literature‐based models for phenytoin (PHT), levetiracetam (LEV), and valproic acid (VPA). These models were used to simulate rich concentration‐time profiles from 0 to 2 h. Profiles without residual unexplained variability (RUV) were used to obtain the true partial area under the curve (pAUC) until 2 h after the start of drug infusion. From the profiles with the RUV, two concentrations per patient were randomly selected. These concentrations were analyzed under a population model to obtain individual population PK (PopPK) pAUCs. The NCA pAUCs were calculated using a linear trapezoidal rule. Percent prediction errors (PPEs) for the PopPK pAUCs and NCA pAUCs were calculated. A PPE within ±20% of the true value was considered a success and the number of successes was obtained for 100 simulated datasets. For PHT, LEV, and VPA, respectively, the median value of the success statistics obtained using the PopPK approach of 81%, 92%, and 88% were significantly higher than the 72%, 80%, and 67% using the NCA approach (p < 0.05; Mann–Whitney U test). This study provides a means by which early exposure can be estimated with good precision from two concentrations and a PopPK approach. It can be applied to other settings in which early exposures are of interest.

Levetiracetam for convulsive status epilepticus in childhood: systematic review and meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Prolonged seizures are life-threatening emergencies associated with significant morbidity.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam in treating convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) in childhood.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTIONS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched from inception up to April 2020. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included children aged 1 month-18 years were assessed. Two reviewers performed data assessment and extraction.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Ten studies out of the 20 637 citations identified were included.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Cessation of seizure activities, time to cessation of seizure activities, need for rapid sequence intubation (RSI), intensive care unit (ICU) admission, recurrence of seizures at 24 hours, adverse events and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs (n=1907). There was no significant difference in cessation of seizure activities when levetiracetam was compared with phenytoin (risk ratio (RR)=1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09), levetiracetam to fosphenytoin (RR=1.16, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.35) or levetiracetam to valproate (RR=1.10, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.27). No differences were found in relation to the timing of cessation of seizures for levetiracetam versus phenytoin (mean difference (MD)=-0.45, 95% CI -1.83 to 0.93), or levetiracetam versus fosphenytoin (MD=-0.70, 95% CI -4.26 to 2.86). There were no significant differences with regard to ICU admissions, adverse events, recurrence of seizure at 24 hours, RSI and all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSION

Levetiracetam is comparable to phenytoin, fosphenytoin and valproate as a second line treatment of paediatric CSE.

Safety and Tolerability of Rapid Administration Undiluted Levetiracetam

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Levetiracetam (LEV) is an antiepileptic drug used widely in patients with a favorable safety profile. Studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of intravenous (IV) LEV included volumes of at least 100 mL. Minimally diluted doses administered over 5-6 min were found to be both safe and effective. Given the complexities of admixing, this practice can be impractical and result in delays in antiepileptic therapy. This study aimed to retrospectively review the safety and tolerability of rapid administration of undiluted LEV doses ≤ 1000 mg.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study evaluating adverse drug reactions associated with undiluted LEV from January 1, 2018-June 1, 2018. Patients were included if they received at least one dose of undiluted LEV and were ≥ 18 years old. Safety endpoints were reviewed and collected from the time administration until hospital discharge. Endpoints included injection site pain and discomfort, injection site erythema, extravasation, IV line replacement, and any documented adverse effect leading to IV LEV discontinuation. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

A total of 199 patients were included in the study totaling 1626 doses of LEV. Most patients were administered LEV 1000 mg (60.8%), through a peripheral line (64.3%), and were prescribed LEV for seizure prophylaxis (58.3%). Patients received a mean of 8.1 ± 8 doses for a mean duration of therapy of 5 ± 4.5 days. About 98.5% of patients did not experience an adverse effect, whereas 1.5% of patients experienced agitation, delirium, confusion, and/or lethargy, which is well known to LEV therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid administration of undiluted LEV doses ≤ 1000 mg were well tolerated with no concentration-related side effects. Further prospective research is needed to confirm this observation as well as the safety of higher doses.

Early Exposure of Fosphenytoin, Levetiracetam, and Valproic Acid After High-Dose Intravenous Administration in Young Children With Benzodiazepine-Refractory Status Epilepticus

Fosphenytoin (FOS) and its active form, phenytoin (PHT), levetiracetam (LEV), and valproic acid (VPA) are commonly used second-line treatments of status epilepticus. However, limited information is available regarding LEV and VPA concentrations following high intravenous doses, particularly in young children. The Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial, a blinded, comparative effectiveness study of FOS, LEV, and VPA for benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus provided an opportunity to investigate early drug concentrations. Patients aged ≥2 years who continued to seizure despite receiving adequate doses of benzodiazepines were randomly assigned to FOS, LEV, or VPA infused over 10 minutes. A sparse blood-sampling approach was used, with up to 2 samples collected per patient within 2 hours following drug administration. The objective of this work was to report early drug exposure of PHT, LEV, and VPA and plasma protein binding of PHT and VPA. Twenty-seven children with median (interquartile range) age of 4 (2.5-6.5) years were enrolled. The total plasma concentrations ranged from 69 to 151.3 μg/mL for LEV, 11.3 to 26.7 μg/mL for PHT and 126 to 223 μg/mL for VPA. Free fraction ranged from 4% to 19% for PHT and 17% to 51% for VPA. This is the first report in young children of LEV concentrations with convulsive status epilepticus as well as VPA concentrations after a 40 mg/kg dose. Several challenges limited patient enrollment and blood sampling. Additional studies with a larger sample size are required to evaluate the exposure-response relationships in this emergent condition.

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.

Levetiracetam vs. phenytoin as 2nd-line treatment for status epilepticus: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam (LEV) or phenytoin (PHT) as second-line treatment for status epilepticus (SE).

METHODS

PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Scopus, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar were assessed for prospective randomized trials comparing LEV with PHT as second-line treatment of SE published from inception until December 18th, 2019. The primary outcome was seizure cessation. Data were analyzed using a random-effects model. Quality analysis was performed using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020136417).

RESULTS

Nine studies with a total of 1732 patients were included. Overall, seizure cessation occurred in 657 of 887 (74%) of patients in the LEV group and 600 of 845 (71%) in the PHT group. Treatment success did not differ significantly between groups, and the relative risk (RR) was 1.05 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98-1.12; I² = 53%). Six of the studies were at low risk of bias, one study had some risk, and two studies had high risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of LEV or PHT as second-line agents after benzodiazepine (BZD) for the treatment of SE was not associated with a difference in seizure cessation. Because there are minimal differences in efficacy at this time, clinicians should consider alternative factors when deciding on an antiepileptic drug (AED).

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.

Evaluation of fosphenytoin, levetiracetam, and propofol as treatments for nerve agent-induced seizures in pediatric and adult rats

Multiple recent instances of nerve agent (NA) exposure in civilian populations have occurred, resulting in a variety of negative effects and lethality in both adult and pediatric populations. Seizures are a prominent effect of NAs that can result in neurological damage and contribute to their lethality. Current anticonvulsant treatments for NAs are approved for adults, but no approved pediatric treatments exist. Further, the vast majority of NA-related research in animals has been conducted in adult male subjects. There is a need for research that includes female and pediatric populations in testing. In this project, adult and pediatric male and female rats were challenged with sarin or VX and then treated with fosphenytoin, levetiracetam, or propofol. In this study, fosphenytoin and levetiracetam failed to terminate seizure activity when animals were treated 5 min after seizure onset. Propofol was effective, exhibiting high efficacy and potency for terminating seizure activity quickly in pediatric and adult animals, suggesting it may be an effective anticonvulsant for NA-induced seizures in pediatric populations.

Levetiracetam versus phenytoin for the treatment of established status epilepticus: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam and phenytoin for the treatment of established status epilepticus.

METHODS

In this systematic review, we searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases from their inception with no language restrictions until May 8, 2019 and updated on February 5, 2020, for randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam and phenytoin for the treatment of established status epilepticus. A Meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the risk ratio (RR) using random-effects models.

RESULTS

We identified 7 trials with a total of 1028 participants. Levetiracetam was not associated with an increased rate of clinical seizure cessation within 60 min compared with phenytoin (RR, 1.02; 95 %CI, 0.92-1.13; I² = 3%; 60.0 % [309/515] vs 59.3 % [275/463];12 more events [95 % CI, -48 to 77] per 1000 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Results were similar in the subgroup analysis of adults and children. The sample size met the optimum size in trial sequential analysis. There were also no statistically significant effects on good functional outcome (RR, 1.05; 95 % CI, 0.90-1.23), admission to critical care (RR, 1.09; 95 % CI, 0.95-1.24), or all-cause mortality (RR, 1.09; 95 % CI, 0.55-2.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence suggested that levetiracetam was not significantly superior to phenytoin in seizure cessation in patients with established status epilepticus.

Sustained Effort Network for treatment of Status Epilepticus (SENSE) - A multicenter prospective observational registry

Status epilepticus (SE) is an important neurological emergency lacking adequate evidence for efficacy and safety of treatment beyond the application of benzodiazepines as first treatment step. To bridge the gap between the few pivotal trials and retrospective uncontrolled case series, we established a prospective multicenter registry recruiting patients in experienced centers in German-speaking countries. We could document 1179 episodes of 1049 patients over a period of 5 years. First data analysis showed that in the majority of the episodes, established treatment guidelines were not followed. Latency between status onset and different treatment steps were longer, and bolus doses lower than recommended. Moreover, a relevant proportion of the patients did not receive a benzodiazepine but levetiracetam as first treatment step. Although SE could be controlled in more than 90% of the episodes, lower bolus dose and longer treatment latency were associated with refractoriness of the SE in multivariate analysis. This article is part of the Special Issue "Proceedings of the 7th London-Innsbruck Colloquium on Status Epilepticus and Acute Seizures.

Levetiracetam versus phenytoin in children with status epilepticus

Background:

To compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous levetiracetam and phenytoin in status epilepticus.

Methodology:

A prospective, randomized controlled, nonblinded study was conducted in children 1 month to 12 years of age with active seizure and with status epilepticus. A total of 104 children were randomly allocated to either group 1 (levetiracetam) or group 2 (phenytoin) on the basis of computer-generated random number table. Children already on antiepileptic drugs, very sick children with shock, impending respiratory failure, or head injury, and children hypersensitive to phenytoin or levetiracetam were excluded. Data analysis was done by IBM SPSS statistics.

Results:

The mean age was 4.09 years with a male preponderance with the most common type of seizure being generalized type (74%). The seizures were controlled in all 104 patients initially within 40 min. Seizure control for 24 h was significantly better in group 1 (96%) when compared with group 2 (59.6%) (P = 0.0001). Minibolus of drug was given in 28.8% in group 1 and 46.2% in group 2 (P = 0.068). The seizure recurrence in groups 1 and 2 in the first hour was 1.9% and 5.8%, respectively (P = 0.61), whereas the recurrence between 1 and 24 h was significantly more in group 1 (34.6%) when compared with group 2 (3.8%) (P = 0.0001). The mean time to control seizure was comparable between both the groups (P = 0.71). There was no significant adverse effect in both the groups.

Conclusion:

Levetiracetam is more effective than phenytoin for seizure control for 24 h in children with status epilepticus, and it is safe and effective as a second-line therapy.

Neurodevelopmental outcomes at 9-14 months gestational age after treatment of neonatal seizures due to brain injury

PURPOSE

Infants with brain injury are susceptible to developmental delays. Survivors of neonatal seizures are at risk for developmental delay, epilepsy, and further neurological comorbidities. Despite advances in neonatal critical care, the prevalence of adverse long-term outcomes and seizure recurrence remains unchanged. Our goal is to determine if early treatment of neonatal seizures with phenobarbital or levetiracetam is associated with worse neurodevelopmental outcomes in brain-injured infants.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 119 infants admitted between 2013 and 2017 who were at risk for developmental delay and assessed in our clinic. We compared brain injury infants with neonatal seizures to brain injury infants without neonatal seizures using Bayley scores (BSID III) at 9-14 months gestational age. A comparison of Bayley scores between those exposed to phenobarbital and levetiracetam was conducted.

RESULTS

Twenty-two children with neonatal seizures scored lower than 53 children without seizures in all domains with significant values in composite scores for cognitive function (p = 0.003) and language (p = 0.031). We found no difference in scores at 9-14 months between infants exposed to phenobarbital versus levetiracetam.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that in infants with brain injury, the occurrence of neonatal seizures has an adverse effect on neurodevelopmental outcomes. The choice of antiseizure medication may not play a significant role in their outcomes.

Levetiracetam versus phenytoin for second-line treatment of convulsive status epilepticus in children (ConSEPT): an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Phenytoin is the current standard of care for second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus after failure of first-line benzodiazepines, but is only effective in 60% of cases and is associated with considerable adverse effects. A newer anticonvulsant, levetiracetam, can be given more quickly, is potentially more efficacious, and has a more tolerable adverse effect profile. We aimed to determine whether phenytoin or levetiracetam is the superior second-line treatment for paediatric convulsive status epilepticus.

METHODS

ConSEPT was an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial conducted in 13 emergency departments in Australia and New Zealand. Children aged between 3 months and 16 years, with convulsive status epilepticus that failed first-line benzodiazepine treatment, were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated permuted block (block sizes 2 and 4) randomisation sequence, stratified by site and age (≤5 years, >5 years), to receive 20 mg/kg phenytoin (intravenous or intraosseous infusion over 20 min) or 40 mg/kg levetiracetam (intravenous or intraosseous infusion over 5 min). The primary outcome was clinical cessation of seizure activity 5 min after the completion of infusion of the study drug. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12615000129583.

FINDINGS

Between March 19, 2015, and Nov 29, 2017, 639 children presented to participating emergency departments with convulsive status epilepticus; 127 were missed, and 278 did not meet eligibility criteria. The parents of one child declined to give consent, leaving 233 children (114 assigned to phenytoin and 119 assigned to levetiracetam) in the intention-to-treat population. Clinical cessation of seizure activity 5 min after completion of infusion of study drug occurred in 68 (60%) patients in the phenytoin group and 60 (50%) patients in the levetiracetam group (risk difference -9·2% [95% CI -21·9 to 3·5]; p=0·16). One participant in the phenytoin group died at 27 days because of haemorrhagic encephalitis; this death was not thought to be due to the study drug. There were no other serious adverse events.

INTERPRETATION

Levetiracetam is not superior to phenytoin for second-line management of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus.

FUNDING

Health Research Council of New Zealand, A+ Trust, Emergency Medicine Foundation, Townsville Hospital Private Practice Fund, Eric Ormond Baker Charitable Fund, and Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation.

IV Levetiracetam versus IV Phenytoin in Childhood Seizures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of IV phenytoin and IV levetiracetam in acute seizures.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Tertiary care hospital, November 2012 to April 2014.

PATIENTS

100 children aged 3-12 yrs of age presenting with acute seizures.

INTERVENTION

Participants randomly received either IV phenytoin 20 mg/kg (n = 50) or IV levetiracetam 30 mg/kg (n = 50). Patients who were had seizures at presentation received IV diazepam prior to these drugs.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary: Absence of seizure activity within next 24 hrs.Secondary: Stopping of clinical seizure activity within 20 mins of first intervention, change in cardiorespiratory parameters, and achievement of therapeutic drug levels.

RESULTS

Two groups were comparable in patient characteristics and seizure type (P > 0.05). Of the 100 children, 3 in levetiracetam and 2 in phenytoin group had a repeat seizure in 24 hrs, efficacy was comparable (94% vs 96%, P > 0.05). Of these, 18 (36%) in phenytoin and 12 (24%) in levetiracetam group received diazepam. Sedation time was 178.80 ±97.534 mins in phenytoin and 145.50 ±105.208 mins in levetiracetam group (P = 0.346). Changes in cardiorespiratory parameters were similar in both groups except a lower diastolic blood pressure with phenytoin (P = 0.023). Therapeutic drug levels were achieved in 38 (76%) children both at 4 and 24 hrs with phenytoin, compared to 50 (100%) and 48 (98%) at 1 and 24 hrs with levetiracetam (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Intravenous levetiracetam and phenytoin have similar efficacy in preventing seizure recurrences for 24 hrs in children 3-12 years presenting with acute seizures.

A serious adverse event secondary to rapid intravenous levetiracetam injection in a dog

OBJECTIVE

To describe a serious adverse event as a result of rapid intravenous injection of undiluted levetiracetam in a dog.

CASE SUMMARY

An 8-year-old female spayed Chihuahua was evaluated for cluster seizures and tachypnea. The patient was administered an intravenous dose of undiluted levetiracetam (60 mg/kg) and immediately developed tachycardia, hyperglycemia, hypotension, and a dull mentation. The patient's blood pressure and mentation did not respond to intravenous fluid boluses but improved immediately after administration of epinephrine intravenously. The patient subsequently developed respiratory failure necessitating mechanical ventilation, prior to cardiac arrest. Necropsy examination noted a pulmonary inflammatory cell infiltrate, pulmonary edema, and interstitial pneumonia.

NEW OR UNIQUE INFORMATION PROVIDED

This report documents a serious adverse event associated with intravenous levetiracetam administration to a dog.

IV Levetiracetam versus IV Phenytoin in Childhood Seizures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objectives:

To compare the efficacy of IV phenytoin and IV levetiracetam in acute seizures.

Design:

Randomized controlled trial.

Setting:

Tertiary care hospital, November 2012 to April 2014.

Patients:

100 children aged 3–12 yrs of age presenting with acute seizures.

Intervention:

Participants randomly received either IV phenytoin 20 mg/kg (n = 50) or IV levetiracetam 30 mg/kg (n = 50). Patients who were had seizures at presentation received IV diazepam prior to these drugs.

Outcome Measures:

Primary: Absence of seizure activity within next 24 hrs.

Secondary: Stopping of clinical seizure activity within 20 mins of first intervention, change in cardiorespiratory parameters, and achievement of therapeutic drug levels.

Results:

Two groups were comparable in patient characteristics and seizure type (P > 0.05). Of the 100 children, 3 in levetiracetam and 2 in phenytoin group had a repeat seizure in 24 hrs, efficacy was comparable (94% vs 96%, P > 0.05). Of these, 18 (36%) in phenytoin and 12 (24%) in levetiracetam group received diazepam. Sedation time was 178.80 ±97.534 mins in phenytoin and 145.50 ±105.208 mins in levetiracetam group (P = 0.346). Changes in cardiorespiratory parameters were similar in both groups except a lower diastolic blood pressure with phenytoin (P = 0.023). Therapeutic drug levels were achieved in 38 (76%) children both at 4 and 24 hrs with phenytoin, compared to 50 (100%) and 48 (98%) at 1 and 24 hrs with levetiracetam (P < 0.05).

Conclusion:

Intravenous levetiracetam and phenytoin have similar efficacy in preventing seizure recurrences for 24 hrs in children 3–12 years presenting with acute seizures.

A multicentre randomised controlled trial of levetiracetam versus phenytoin for convulsive status epilepticus in children (protocol): Convulsive Status Epilepticus Paediatric Trial (ConSEPT) - a PREDICT study

Background

Convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) is the most common life-threatening childhood neurological emergency. Despite this, there is a lack of high quality evidence supporting medication use after first line benzodiazepines, with current treatment protocols based solely on non-experimental evidence and expert opinion. The current standard of care, phenytoin, is only 60% effective, and associated with considerable adverse effects. A newer anti-convulsant, levetiracetam, can be given faster, is potentially more efficacious, with a more tolerable side effect profile. The primary aim of the study presented in this protocol is to determine whether intravenous (IV) levetiracetam or IV phenytoin is the better second line treatment for the emergency management of CSE in children.

Methods/Design

200 children aged between 3 months and 16 years presenting to 13 emergency departments in Australia and New Zealand with CSE, that has failed to stop with first line benzodiazepines, will be enrolled into this multicentre open randomised controlled trial. Participants will be randomised to 40 mg/kg IV levetiracetam infusion over 5 min or 20 mg/kg IV phenytoin infusion over 20 min. The primary outcome for the study is clinical cessation of seizure activity five minutes following the completion of the infusion of the study medication. Blinded confirmation of the primary outcome will occur with the primary outcome assessment being video recorded and assessed by a primary outcome assessment team blinded to treatment allocation. Secondary outcomes include: Clinical cessation of seizure activity at two hours; Time to clinical seizure cessation; Need for rapid sequence induction; Intensive care unit (ICU) admission; Serious adverse events; Length of Hospital/ICU stay; Health care costs; Seizure status/death at one-month post discharge.

Discussion

This paper presents the background, rationale, and design for a randomised controlled trial comparing levetiracetam to phenytoin in children presenting with CSE in whom benzodiazepines have failed. This study will provide the first high quality evidence for management of paediatric CSE post first-line benzodiazepines.

Trial registration

Prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12615000129583 (11/2/2015). UTN U1111–1144-5272. ConSEPT protocol version 4 (12/12/2014).

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.

Antiepileptic Drugs Impair Shortening of Isolated Cardiomyocytes

Background

Most antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) inhibit seizure generation by acting on voltage-dependent ion channels. Voltage-dependent sodium and calcium channels are commonly expressed in brain and heart, suggesting that AEDs may have considerable cardiodepressive effects, thereby facilitating sudden cardiac death as a potential cause of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. Here, we investigated the effects of carbamazepine (CBZ), lamotrigine (LTG), and levetiracetam (LEV) alone and in combination on the shortening properties of isolated ventricular cardiomyocytes of wild-type mice.

Methods

Properties of murine cardiomyocytes were determined by recording the sarcomere shortening with a video imaging system before, during, and after administration of AEDs in different concentrations and combinations. We assessed (i) the number of successful shortenings during continuous electrical stimulation (electromechanical coupling) and (ii) the shortening amplitude as well as other shortening-related properties upon repetitive electrical stimulation at 4 Hz. Data are given as mean ± SEM.

Results

At 100 μM, CBZ (10 cells), LTG (11 cells), and LEV (11 cells) alone had no effect on the electromechanical coupling but reversibly reduced shortening amplitudes by 15 ± 4, 24 ± 3, and 11 ± 3%, respectively. Increasing the LTG concentration to 250 (21 cells) and 500 μM (4 cells) reversibly inhibited the electromechanical coupling in 62 and 100% of the experiments. Importantly, simultaneous application of CBZ, LTG, and LEV at 100 μM also impaired the electromechanical coupling in 8 of 19 cardiomyocytes (42%) and reduced the shortening amplitude by 21 ± 4%.

Conclusion

Our data show that AEDs reversibly impair cardiac excitation and contraction. Importantly, the blocking effect on electromechanical coupling appears to be additive when different AEDs are simultaneously applied. The translational value of these experimental findings into clinical practice is limited. Our results, however, suggest that rationale AED therapy may be important with respect to cardiac side effects and potential facilitation of serious cardiac dysfunction especially when AEDs are used in combination or at very high doses.

Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with seizures

This clinical policy from the American College of Emergency Physicians is the revision of a 2004 policy on critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients with seizures in the emergency department. A writing subcommittee reviewed the literature to derive evidence-based recommendations to help clinicians answer the following critical questions: (1) In patients with a first generalized convulsive seizure who have returned to their baseline clinical status, should antiepileptic therapy be initiated in the emergency department to prevent additional seizures? (2) In patients with a first unprovoked seizure who have returned to their baseline clinical status in the emergency department, should the patient be admitted to the hospital to prevent adverse events? (3) In patients with a known seizure disorder in which resuming their antiepileptic medication in the emergency department is deemed appropriate, does the route of administration impact recurrence of seizures? (4) In emergency department patients with generalized convulsive status epilepticus who continue to have seizures despite receiving optimal dosing of a benzodiazepine, which agent or agents should be administered next to terminate seizures? A literature search was performed, the evidence was graded, and recommendations were given based on the strength of the available data in the medical literature.

Clinical pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of levetiracetam

Status epilepticus and acute repetitive seizures still pose a management challenge despite the recent advances in the field of epilepsy. Parenteral formulations of old anticonvulsants are still a cornerstone in acute seizure management and are approved by the FDA. Intravenous levetiracetam (IV LEV), a second generation anticonvulsant, is approved by the FDA as an adjunctive treatment in patients 16 years or older when oral administration is not available. Data have shown that it has a unique mechanism of action, linear pharmacokinetics and no known drug interactions with other anticonvulsants. In this paper, we will review the current literature about the pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of IV LEV and the safety profile of this new anticonvulsant in acute seizure management of both adults and children.

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.

Levetiracetam use in the critical care setting

Intravenous (IV) levetiracetam (LEV) is currently approved as an alternative or replacement therapy for patients unable to take the oral form of this antiepileptic drug (AED). The oral form has Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indications for adjunctive therapy in the treatment of partial onset epilepsy ages 1 month or more, myoclonic seizures associated with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy starting with the age of 12 and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in people 6 years and older. Since the initial introduction, oral and IV LEV has been evaluated in various studies conducted in the critical care setting for the treatment of status epilepticus, stroke-related seizures, seizures following subarachnoid or intracerebral hemorrhage, post-traumatic seizures, tumor-related seizures, and seizures in critically ill patients. Additionally, studies evaluating rapid infusion of IV LEV and therapeutic monitoring of serum LEV levels in different patient populations have been performed. In this review we present the current state of knowledge on LEV use in the critical care setting focusing on the IV uses and discuss future research needs.

Intravenous levetiracetam for treatment of neonatal seizures

In this case series we report on eight neonates with refractory seizures who received intravenous levetiracetam when seizures did not respond to two or more conventional anticonvulsants. Six of the eight neonates had an excellent response with either cessation, or reduction in seizures by at least 80%. One neonate showed a partial response while one did not have any reduction in seizure frequency. We did not encounter any adverse effects that could be attributable to levetiracetam.

Levetiracetam for treatment of neonatal seizures

Neonatal seizures are often refractory to treatment with initial antiseizure medications. Consequently, clinicians turn to alternatives such as levetiracetam, despite the lack of published data regarding its safety, tolerability, or efficacy in the neonatal population. We report a retrospectively identified cohort of 23 neonates with electroencephalographically confirmed seizures who received levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was considered effective if administration was associated with a greater than 50% seizure reduction within 24 hours. Levetiracetam was initiated at a mean conceptional age of 41 weeks. The mean initial dose was 16 ± 6 mg/kg and the mean maximum dose was 45 ± 19 mg/kg/day. No respiratory or cardiovascular adverse effects were reported or detected. Levetiracetam was associated with a greater than 50% seizure reduction in 35% (8 of 23), including seizure termination in 7. Further study is warranted to determine optimal levetiracetam dosing in neonates and to compare efficacy with other antiseizure medications.

Medical treatment of pediatric status epilepticus

Status epilepticus (SE) is a common pediatric neurologic emergency that refers to a prolonged seizure or recurrent seizures without a return to baseline mental status between seizures. Appropriate treatment strategies are necessary to prevent prolonged SE and its associated morbidity and mortality. This review discusses the importance of a rapid and organized management approach, reviews data related to commonly utilized medications including benzodiazepines, phenytoin, phenobarbital, valproate sodium, and levetiracetam, and then provides a sample SE management algorithm.

Intravenous levetiracetam in the management of acute seizures in children

Levetiracetam may be effective in children with acute seizures or status epilepticus. We performed a retrospective chart review of children who received intravenous levetiracetam within 30 minutes of a seizure. Seventy-three patients during a 2-year study period met our inclusion criteria. The mean (+/- S.D.) age and weight of the patients were 5.59 +/- 5.6 years (range, 1 day to 17.8 years) and 23.1 +/- 21 kg (range, 1.97-97 kg), respectively. Patients received a mean (+/- S.D.) levetiracetam dose of 29.4 +/- 13.5 mg/kg. Most children (n = 49, or 67%) received additional antiepileptic drugs to abort their seizure. Overall, the mean (+/- S.D.) total (abortive plus chronic) number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs used by the population was 2.53 +/- 1.7 (1.07 +/- 0.98 as additional abortive therapy, and 1.42 +/- 1.29 as chronic therapy). Most patients received levetiracetam for serial seizures (79%), whereas 12% and 8% manifested a single seizure or status epilepticus, respectively. Clinical effectiveness at 1, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours after the initial levetiracetam dose constituted the primary study outcome. Eighty-nine percent of patients remained seizure-free at 1 hour. This rate decreased at each evaluation time point. Most patients (71%) were placed on maintenance levetiracetam within 24 hours of their loading dose. The predictive ability of patient and drug regimen variables in outcomes was poor. Only the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs consistently predicted outcomes. Levetiracetam was well tolerated at the doses studied, and appears most effective in single seizure events.

Intravenous levetiracetam in children with seizures: a prospective safety study

In 2006, intravenous levetiracetam received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for adjunctive treatment of partial onset seizures in adults with epilepsy, 16 years or older. We have established the safety, tolerability, and dosage of intravenous levetiracetam in children. This prospective study included 30 children (6 months to <15 years of age). Patients were administered a single dose of intravenous levetiracetam (50 mg/kg, maximal dose 2500 mg) over 15 minutes. A blood level of levetiracetam was performed 10 minutes after the infusion. The treated children's average age was 6.3 years (range 0.5-14.8 years). The mean levetiracetam level was 83.3 microg/mL (range 47-128 microg/mL). There were no serious adverse reactions. Minor reactions included sleepiness, fatigue, and restlessness. An apparent decrease in seizure frequency across all seizure types was noted. The dose of 50 mg/kg was well tolerated by the patients and is a safe, appropriate loading dose.