Levetiracetam for the prevention of busulfan-induced seizures in pediatric hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients

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.

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.

Impact of valproic acid on busulfan pharmacokinetics: In vitro assessment of potential drug-drug interaction

Busulfan (Bu) is an alkylating agent commonly used at high doses in the preparative regimens of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). It has been shown that such high doses of Bu are associated with generalized seizures which are usually managed by prophylactic antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) such as valproic acid (VPA). Being a strong enzyme inhibitor, VPA may inhibit Bu metabolism and thus increase its potential toxicity. Despite its clinical relevance, the potential interaction between Bu and VPA has not yet been evaluated. The aim of the present study was to assess and evaluate the potential drug-drug interaction (DDI) between Bu and VPA. This study was carried out by incubating Bu in laboratory-prepared rat liver-subcellular fractions including S9, microsomes, and cytosol, alone or in combination with VPA. The liver fractions were prepared by differential centrifugation of the liver homogenate. Analysis of Bu was employed using a fully validated LC-MS/MS method. The validation parameters were within the proposed limits of the international standards guidelines. Bu metabolic stability was assessed by incubating Bu at a concentration of 8 μg/ml in liver fractions at 37°C. There were significant reductions in Bu levels in S9 and cytosolic fractions, whereas these levels were not significantly (P ˃ 0.05) changed in microsomes. However, in presence of VPA, Bu levels in S9 fraction remained unchanged. These results indicated, for the first time, the potential metabolic interaction of Bu and VPA being in S9 only. This could be explained by inhibiting Bu cytosolic metabolism by the interaction with VPA either by sharing the same metabolic enzyme or the required co-factor. In conclusion, the present findings suggest, for the first time, a potential DDI between Bu and VPA in vitro using rat liver fractions. Further investigations are warranted in human-derived liver fractions to confirm such an interaction.

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.

Phenytoin as seizure prophylaxis in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with busulfan conditioning

Background

Phenytoin is widely used as primary seizure prophylaxis in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients undergoing myeloablative conditioning with busulfan. Because of the negative side effects of phenytoin, we abandoned phenytoin use in these patients. To assess the effect of this change, we performed a retrospective cohort study on all patients receiving busulfan.

Methods

We included 139 patients who underwent conditioning with busulfan for hematopoietic stem cell therapy. We registered the use of phenytoin, as well as the occurrence of seizures, until 7 days after busulfan administration. We compared seizure incidence between patients who received phenytoin and those who did not.

Results

Of the 43 patients who received phenytoin prophylaxis, four patients (9.3%) had a seizure during the conditioning regimen, of which two patients had cerebral non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Furthermore, all these 4 patients had very high levels of phenytoin (intoxication). Of the 96 patients that did not receive phenytoin prophylaxis, three patients (3.1%) had a seizure, and one of these patients had an undefined cerebral lesion. Phenytoin did not relate to seizure prevention in a logistic regression analysis.

Conclusion

We conclude that phenytoin prophylaxis in patients treated with busulfan is obsolete and possibly harmful, as phenytoin intoxication can occur. We recommend discontinuing the use of phenytoin as primary seizure prophylaxis in these patients.

Epileptic Seizures After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Technique in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has greatly advanced over the past decades, which has led to an increase in the number of patients receiving transplantation, but the complex procedure places these transplant recipients at high risk of a large spectrum of complications including neurologic involvement. As a common manifestation of neurological disorders, epileptic seizures after transplantation have been of great concern to clinicians because it seriously affects the survival rate and living quality of those recipients. The aim of this review is to elucidate the incidence of seizures after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and to further summarize in detail its etiologies, possible mechanisms, clinical manifestations, therapeutic schedule, and prognosis, hoping to improve doctors' understandings of concurrent seizures following transplantation, so they can prevent, process, and eventually improve the survival and outlook for patients in a timely manner and correctly.

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

INTRODUCTION

Busulfan is a chemotherapy agent used in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) conditioning regimens. Busulfan is associated with tonic-clonic seizures in ~10% of patients if administered without seizure prophylaxis. Historically, phenytoin was the most commonly utilized seizure prophylaxis agent; however, phenytoin is associated with CYP450 drug interactions and potentially increases the clearance of busulfan. Levetiracetam is being used more recently for busulfan seizure prophylaxis and is not associated with drug-drug interactions; however, data supporting use in pediatric patients are limited. The primary objective is to determine whether there is any difference in seizure rates or safety profile between phenytoin and levetiracetam when used for seizure prophylaxis.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review including patients who received busulfan between 2010 and 2019 were identified. The data were evaluated to compare the incidence of busulfan-induced seizures in HSCT patients receiving either phenytoin or levetiracetam and to determine the impact of drug-drug interactions on treatment outcomes/adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 342 patients were included with a median age of six years. Overall, five patients within the phenytoin group (n = 126) (4%) and zero patients in the levetiracetam group (n = 216) experienced a seizure (P = .007). There were no differences in liver enzyme elevations, recurrence rates of primary disease, and veno-occlusive disease.

CONCLUSION

Levetiracetam is effective at preventing seizures associated with busulfan administration with no clinically significant adverse effects when compared to phenytoin.

Association of Antiepileptic Medications with Outcomes after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation with Busulfan/Cyclophosphamide Conditioning

High-dose busulfan (BU) followed by high-dose cyclophosphamide (CY) before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) has long been used as treatment for hematologic malignancies. Administration of phenytoin or newer alternative antiepileptic medications (AEMs) prevents seizures caused by BU. Phenytoin induces enzymes that increase exposure to active CY metabolites in vivo, whereas alternative AEMs do not have this effect. Lower exposure to active CY metabolites with the use of alternative AEMs could decrease the risk of toxicity but might increase the risk of recurrent malignancy after HCT. Previous studies have not determined whether outcomes with alternative AEMs differ from those with phenytoin in patients treated with BU/CY before allogeneic HCT. We studied a cohort of 2155 patients, including 1460 treated with phenytoin and 695 treated with alternative AEMs, who received BU/CY before allogeneic HCT between 2004 and 2014. We found no differences suggesting decreased overall survival or relapse-free survival or increased risks of relapse, nonrelapse mortality, acute or chronic graft-versus-host disease, or regimen-related toxicity associated with the use of alternative AEMs compared with phenytoin. The risk of dialysis was lower in the alternative AEM group than in the phenytoin group. Alternative AEMs are safe for prevention of seizures after BU administration and can avoid the undesirable toxicities and drug interactions caused by phenytoin.

Comparison of levetiracetam with phenytoin for the prevention of intravenous busulfan-induced seizures in hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients

Purpose

Busulfan is used as a conditioning regimen for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and is known to cause seizures as a side effect. As various anticonvulsant drugs have been reported, we conducted a retrospective investigation regarding the preventive effects and adverse events associated with different anticonvulsants administered alongside intravenous busulfan (ivBu) in our institution.

Methods

We targeted 104 patients who received ivBu at our institution from May 1, 2010 to April 30, 2017. We investigated the seizure prevention rate and adverse events rate under anticonvulsant prophylaxis.

Results

There were 70 cases (67.3%) of phenytoin administration and 34 cases (32.7%) of levetiracetam administration for anticonvulsant therapy. The seizure prevention rate was 98.6% for phenytoin and 100% for levetiracetam; seizures occurred in one out of 104 patients. There were no significant differences in the seizure prevention rate depending on the type of anticonvulsant. Further, there were no differences in adverse events.

Conclusions

Anticonvulsant prophylaxis is considered necessary for safe conditioning with ivBu. Adverse events associated with the use of levetiracetam are within an acceptable range. Further, levetiracetam is considered useful as a preventive drug against seizures during ivBu administration because it is easy to administer and has ideal pharmacokinetics for supportive care.

The confused oncologic patient: a rational clinical approach

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to provide a practical clinical approach to confusion in the patient with cancer. Confusion in the cancer population has a broader differential diagnosis than in the general medical population. The clinician must consider the usual differential diagnoses as well as causes unique to the cancer patient including direct complications from the cancer and indirect complications related to cancer treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the recent age of precision medicine, the oncologist now utilizes the genomic profile of both the patient and the tumor to provide advanced biologic therapies including targeted anticancer drugs, antiangiogenic agents, and immunotherapy. Such advances carry with them an emerging pattern of neurotoxicity which, although less well described in the literature, is now an important consideration to the clinical approach to confusion in cancer patients.

SUMMARY

Confusion is the most common neurologic complication in cancer and is associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and prolonged hospital stays resulting in increased healthcare costs. Early recognition and treatment of delirium is essential to improve clinical outcomes.