Effectiveness of Levetiracetam Monotherapy in Pediatric Patients With Epilepsy

Safety and efficacy of levetiracetam and carbamazepine monotherapy in the management of pediatric focal epilepsy: a randomized clinical trial

Due to the limited number of studies in children with focal epilepsy and the importance of choosing the most suitable drug to control seizures in children, the administration of the most effective medication with the most negligible adverse events is vital. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and adverse events of carbamazepine vs. levetiracetam monotherapy in children with focal seizures. A monocentric, randomized, controlled, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial was designed. This study was approved by the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (registration number: IRCT20170216032603N2) on June 19, 2020, and conducted at the neurology department of Imam Ali Hospital, Karaj, Iran, from February 2020 to March 2021. This study assessed 120 patients with recently diagnosed focal seizures aged 2 to 14. Patients were randomly divided into two groups, who received carbamazepine (CBZ) 15 to 20 mg/kg and levetiracetam (LEV) 20 to 40 mg/kg daily, respectively. Patients were evaluated for improvement and complications at weeks 4, 12, and 24. Out of 120 patients included in the study, six patients were excluded due to various complications of CBZ. The mean number of seizures at the end of the fourth, twelfth, and twenty-fourth weeks were 1.09 ± 0.75, 0.62 ± 0.27, and 0.39 ± 0.12 in the carbamazepine group and 1.11 ± 0.63, 0.52 ± 0.21, and 0.37 ± 0.11 in the LEV group, respectively (P > 0.05). Similarly, the number of seizure-free patients was 34, 44, and 48 in the CBZ group compared to 41, 50, and 54 in the LEV group, respectively (P > 0.05). On the other hand, the frequency of somnolence, dermatologic complications, and agitation was considerably higher in the CBZ group (P < 0.05). Although both medicines were equally effective in seizure control, CBZ was associated with considerably more adverse events and less patient compliance. Physicians should be aware of this difference to prevent unwanted consequences.

Does levetiracetam use affect visual evoked potentials in the treatment of childhood epilepsy?

BACKGROUND

Side effects of antiepileptic drugs vary depending on the drug itself, drug dose and duration of use. One of these side effects is related to vision.

METHODS

Patients who had been ordered visual evoked potential (VEP) measurements for various reasons between October 1st, 2017 and October 1st, 2019 at a pediatric neurology outpatient clinic and who were on levetiracetam monotherapy for at least six months for the treatment of focal/generalized epilepsy were included in the study and their files were scanned retrospectively (study group: SG). Patient files were evaluated for age, gender, dose and duration of levetiracetam use, presence of a family history of epilepsy, EEG result, cranial magnetic resonance imaging and VEP test results and the parameters were recorded. Twenty-four patients of similar age range without epilepsy were included in the study as the control group (CG).

RESULTS

Eighteen patients 8 boys (44.4%), 10 girls (55.6%) and 24 healthy controls 9 boys (37.5%), 15 girls (62.5%) were included in the study and control groups, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found when the mean VEP latencies were compared between the patient and control groups for the right (P=0.451) and left (P=0.323) eyes. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups, respectively, when VEP amplitudes of the right and left eyes of the SG and CG were compared (P=0.001; P=0.001). There is no correlation between levetiracetam dose and duration of treatment and VEP parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

The data obtained in this study showed that levetiracetam use affected VEP amplitude outcome but did not affect VEP latency outcome in pediatric patients.

Irritability and its relationship with psychosocial symptoms and quality of life in adolescents with epilepsy receiving levetiracetam therapy: A case-control study

BACKGROUND

Levetiracetam, a widely used anticonvulsant drug in children and adolescents, has been associated with irritability, psychosocial symptoms, and low quality of life, which are also influenced by other epilepsy variables.

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to investigate the level of treatment-related irritability in adolescents receiving levetiracetam, and to evaluate the relationship between irritability levels and psychosocial symptoms, and quality of life.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, case-control study was conducted. Consecutive adolescent patients with epilepsy aged 11-17 years with partial or generalized seizures, treated with either levetiracetam or valproic acid for at least 6 months, and healthy controls were recruited. The Affective Reactivity Index parent report and self-report, Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, and Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory-Psychosocial subscale were utilized to assess irritability, psychosocial symptoms, and functioning.

RESULTS

A total of 120 participants were analyzed; 33 patients in the LEV group, 45 patients in the VPA group, and 42 healthy controls. Both self and parent report irritability levels of the LEV group were found to be significantly higher than those of healthy controls. The irritability levels of the LEV and VPA groups were not statistically different, but still the LEV group had higher irritability levels on both scales. In the LEV group, irritability was positively correlated with behavioral, emotional, and attention/hyperactivity problems, and also negatively correlated with psychosocial quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Adolescents with epilepsy using LEV have a high level of irritability and this is associated with some psychosocial symptoms and poor quality of life.

Individualizing doses of antiepileptic drugs

INTRODUCTION

This review aims to identify the optimal therapeutic dosage of anti-epileptic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety in patients with multiple comorbidities.

AREAS COVERED

We have analyzed changes in terms of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of Brivaracetam, Carbamazepine, Lacosamide, Lamotrigine, Levetiracetam, Topiramate, Valproate, and Zonisamide in liver disease, chronic kidney disease, and in patients admitted to intensive care unit. Our literature search covers the past 5 years. We used PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE database's to support our article.

EXPERT OPINION

To ensure that the patient with seizure receives the best treatment in relation to their comorbidities, careful clinical-laboratory monitoring is necessary to maximize effectiveness while maintaining safety, especially in the case of polytherapy.

Efficacy of levetiracetam in the treatment of pediatric epilepsy: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To systematically collect, critically evaluate, and synthesize current evidence with respect to the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of levetiracetam as mono- or adjunctive therapy for children and adolescents with all types of epilepsy.

METHODS

The presentation of methods and results in this systematic review was performed according to the evaluation guidelines for health care interventions provided in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol. Literature retrieval will use the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, China Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Science and Technology Journal Database, Wanfang Database, and Ongoing Clinical Trials Database.The risk of bias of included studies is estimated by taking into consideration the characteristics including random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of patients, blinding of outcome assessment, completeness of outcome data, selective reporting and other bias by Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Data synthesis and analyses are performed using RevMan 5.4 software.

RESULTS

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

CONCLUSION

Levetiracetam seems to be effective and safe for the treatment of pediatric epilepsy.

Initial levetiracetam versus valproate monotherapy in antiseizure medicine (ASM)-naïve pediatric patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy with tonic-clonic seizures

INTRODUCTION

Levetiracetam (LEV) is a second-generation antiseizure medicine (ASM) with broad-spectrum efficacy and tolerability. Few studies have compared the efficacy of valproate (VPA) and LEV as monotherapy in the pediatric population. Herein, we compare the efficacy, tolerability and safety of LEV monotherapy with those of VPA monotherapy in ASM-naïve pediatric patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy with tonic-clonic (GTC) seizures.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical and electroencephalographic (EEG) data of these ASM-naïve pediatric patients who were treated with either oral VPA or oral LEV as monotherapy for over 2 years at our center.

RESULTS

This study included 60 patients with a seizure onset age between 2 months and 12 years. The patients on VPA (29 patients) and LEV monotherapy (31 patients) showed similar favorable 6-month treatment outcomes (complete seizure control in 79.31% vs 80.64%, p = 0.468052). Age at epilepsy onset, epilepsy syndrome, EEG features and ASM dose were not significant predictors of the 6-month treatment outcomes in either group. Lower seizure frequency at presentation was a predictor of favorable 6-month treatment outcomes in the LEV group but not in the VPA group. VPA and LEV treatment showed similar favorable 6-month treatment outcomes in the febrile seizures plus and patients with unidentified epilepsy syndrome subgroups. None of the patients discontinued VPA or LEV due to treatment-associated adverse effects.

DISCUSSION

Our study showed that compared to VPA monotherapy, LEV monotherapy in ASM-naïve infants and children with idiopathic generalized epilepsy with GTC seizures has a similarly favorable efficacy and tolerability, independent of age, EEG features and epilepsy syndrome.

Levetiracetam monotherapy in children with epilepsy: Experience from a tertiary pediatric neurology center

OBJECTIVES

Levetiracetam (LEV) is a second-generation antiepileptic drug with high efficacy and tolerability in children and adults with epilepsy. We aimed to retrospectively assess the long-term efficacy, tolerability, and safety of LEV monotherapy in children with epilepsy.

METHODS

All patients who received LEV monotherapy at the Ankara University Children Hospital between January 2010 and June 2020 were evaluated. This retrospective pediatric cohort study determined the efficacy and safety of LEV monotherapy in 281 outpatients with epilepsy.

RESULTS

There were 281 patients, 50.5% female, aged 5 months to 18 years with a mean age of 9 years. Of these, 48% of patients had idiopathic epilepsy, 40.6% had symptomatic epilepsy, and 11,4% had cryptogenic/genetic epilepsy. Primary generalized seizures occurred in 61.6% of patients, focal seizures in 19.6%, both generalized and focal seizures in 15,3%, focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures in 2.5%, and undefined type of seizure in 1.1%. A total of 22.8% patients had an accompanying extra neurological disease, mostly cardiological and hematological. The range of final daily dose was 10-71 mg/kg/day, with mean 29.5 mg/kg/day. Duration of therapy ranged from 7 days to 96 months, with median 12 months (IQR: 6-22). For the all cohort, a 6th month retention rate was 81%, a 12th month retention rate was 71.4%, and a 24th month retention rate was 61.8%. Eighty five percent of the patients had a seizure reduction of at least 50% and 55.9% of patients remained seizure-free for median 12 months treatment duration with LEV monotherapy. Improvement of electroencephalography (EEG) findings was found in 42% of patients on control EEGs. A total of 67 adverse events were documented in 45 (16%) patients. The most common adverse events were behavioral problems such as aggression (n:18) and irritability (n:17). The discontinuation rate due to adverse events was 2.5%, and due to inefficacy was 5.3%.

CONCLUSION

The present study suggests that the high retention rates, high percentage of seizure reduction, the low discontinuation rate due to adverse events and inefficacy, and the relatively benign and transient profile of adverse events make LEV preferable as monotherapy in the pediatric population.