Emergency treatment with levetiracetam or phenytoin in status epilepticus in children-the EcLiPSE study: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data from the NEOLEV1 and NEOLEV2 studies

OBJECTIVES

To confirm that levetiracetam (LEV) demonstrates predictable pharmacokinetics(PK) at higher doses and to study the pharmacodynamics(PD) of LEV.

DESIGN

Pharmacokinetic data from the NEOLEV1 and NEOLEV2 trials were analysed using a non-linear mixed effects modelling approach. A post hoc analysis of the effect of LEV on seizure burden was conducted.

SETTING

Neonatal intensive care unit.

PATIENTS

Term neonates with electrographically confirmed seizures.

INTERVENTIONS

In NEOLEV1, neonates with seizures persisting following phenobarbital (PHB) received LEV 20 or 40 mg/kg bolus followed by 5 or 10 mg/kg maintenance dose(MD) daily. In NEOLEV2, patients received a 40 mg/kg intravenous LEV load, followed by 10 mg/kg doses 8 hourly. If seizures persisted, a further 20 mg/kg intravenous load was given. If seizures persisted, PHB was given. PK data were collected from 16 NEOLEV1 patients and 33 NEOLEV2 patients. cEEG data from 48 NEOLEV2 patients were analysed to investigate onset of action and seizure burden reduction.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Clearance (CL) and volume of distribution (Vd) were determined. Covariates that significantly affected LEV disposition were identified.

RESULTS

Primary outcome: The median initial LEV level was 57 µg/mL (range 19-107) after the first loading dose and at least 12 µg/mL at 48 hours in all infants. CL and Vd were estimated to be 0.0538 L/hour and 0.832 L, respectively. A direct relationship between postnatal age and CL was observed. The final population pharmacokinetic(PopPK) model described the observed data well without significant biases. CL and Vd were described as CL (L/hour)=0.0538×(weight in kg/3.34)0.75×(postnatal age in days/5.5) 0.402 and Vd (L)=0.832×(weight in kg/3.34).Seizure burden reduced within 30 min of LEV administration. 28% of patients were completely seizure free after LEV. In an additional 25% of patients, seizure burden reduced by 50%.

CONCLUSIONS

LEV pharmacokinetics remained predictable at higher doses. Very high-dose LEV can now be studied in neonates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01720667.

A Phase I trial of Non-invasive Ventilation and seizure prophylaxis with levetiracetam In Children with Cerebral Malaria Trial (NOVICE-M Trial)

Background

African children with cerebral malaria and seizures caused Plasmodium falciparum are at greater risk of poor outcomes including death and neurological sequelae. The agonal events are severe hypoventilation and respiratory arrest often triggered by seizures. We hypothesised that prophylactic anti-seizure medication (ASM) could avert 'spikes' of intracranial pressure during or following seizures and that adequate ventilation could be supported by biphasic Cuirass Ventilation (BCV) which requires no intubation.

Methods

A Phase I trial conducted in Kilifi, Kenya designed to provide data on safety, feasibility and preliminary data on seizure control using prophylactic ASM (levetiracetam) and BCV as non-invasive ventilatory support in children with cerebral malaria. Children aged 3 months to 12-years hospitalised with P falciparum malaria (positive rapid diagnostic test or a malaria slide), a Blantyre Coma Score ≤2 and a history of acute seizures in this illness are eligible for the trial. In a phased evaluation we will study i) BCV alone for respiratory support (n=10); ii) prophylactic LVT: 40mg/kg loading dose then 30mg/kg every 12 hours given via nasogastric tube for 72 hours (or until fully conscious) plus BCV support (n=10) and; iii) prophylactic LVT: 60mg/kg loading dose then 45mg/kg every 12 hours given via nasogastric tube for 72 hours (or until fully conscious) plus BCV support (n=10). Primary outcome measure: cumulative time with a clinically detected seizures or number of observed seizures over 36 hours. Secondary outcomes will be assessed by feasibility or ability to implement BCV, and recovery from coma within 36 hours. Safety endpoints include: aspiration during admission; death at 28 days and 180 days; and de-novo neurological impairments at 180 days.

Conclusions

This is a Phase I trial largely designed to test the feasibility, tolerability and safety of using non-invasive ventilatory support and LVT prophylaxis in cerebral malaria.

Registration

ISRCTN76942974 (5.02.2019); PACTR202112749708968 (20.12.2021).

High-Flow Humidified Oxygen as an Early Intervention in Children With Acute Severe Asthma: Protocol for a Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Acute severe asthma (ASA) is a leading cause of hospital attendance in children. Standard first-line therapy consists of high-dose inhaled bronchodilators plus oral corticosteroids. Treatment for children who fail to respond to first-line therapy is problematic: the use of intravenous agents is inconsistent, and side effects are frequent. High-flow humidified oxygen (HiFlo) is widely used in respiratory conditions and is increasingly being used in ASA, but with little evidence for its effectiveness. A well-designed, adequately powered randomized controlled trial (RCT) of HiFlo therapy in ASA is urgently needed, and feasibility data are required to plan such an RCT. In this study, we describe the protocol for a feasibility study designed to fill this knowledge gap.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to establish whether a full RCT of early HiFlo therapy in children with ASA can be conducted successfully and safely, to establish whether recruitment using deferred consent is practicable, and to define appropriate outcome measures and sample sizes for a definitive RCT. The underlying hypothesis is that early HiFlo therapy in ASA will reduce the need for more invasive treatments, allow faster recovery and discharge from hospital, and in both these ways reduce distress to children and their families.

METHODS

We conducted a feasibility RCT with deferred consent to assess the use of early HiFlo therapy in children aged 2 to 11 years with acute severe wheeze not responding to burst therapy (ie, high-dose inhaled salbutamol with or without ipratropium). Children with a Preschool Respiratory Assessment Measure score ≥5 after burst therapy were randomized to commence HiFlo therapy or follow standard care. The candidate primary outcomes assessed were treatment failure requiring escalation and time to meet hospital discharge criteria. Patient and parent experiences were also assessed using questionnaires and telephone interviews.

RESULTS

The trial was opened to recruitment in February 2020 but was paused for 15 months owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. The trial was reopened at the lead site in July 2021 and opened at the other 3 sites from August to December 2022. Recruitment was completed in June 2023.

CONCLUSIONS

This feasibility RCT of early HiFlo therapy in children with ASA recruited to the target despite major disturbances owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. The data are currently being analyzed and will be published separately.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry ISRCTN78297040; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN78297040.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/54081.

Non-convulsive status epilepticus in Sotos syndrome: rare first presentation in a rare syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Prior to illustration of the causative genetic mutation responsible for Sotos syndrome, diagnosis was based on clinical criteria. They include characteristic facial gestalt, developmental delay, and evidence of overgrowth, in addition to other minor features as cardiac &genitourinary congenital malformation, seizures, scoliosis, among other features. Non-convulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) was not previously reported among Sotos patients.

CASE SUMMARY

An eleven-years old boy, with developmental delay, characteristic facial & skeletal features presented to the emergency department with a two-hour episode of lapse of consciousness. Electroencephalogram (EEG) showed fluctuating generalized spike-wave/poly-spike wave discharge <2.5 Hertz (Hz), lasting throughout the duration of recording. Intravenous (IV) levetiracetam was associated with clinical & EEG improvement & accordingly the patient was diagnosed as NCSE. The mother reported history of polyhydramnios, febrile seizure & developmental delay. Through clinical & radiological assessment revealed generalized hypotonia, low intelligence quotient (IQ), congenital ureteric stricture & pulmonary hypertension, prominent retro-cerebellar cistern, in addition to scoliosis & facial features suggestive of Sotos Syndrome. Six months after presentation, the patient remained seizure free on levetiracetam monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

NCSE could occur in Sotos syndrome. In our case, the first reported case of NCSE in Sotos syndrome, the characteristic facial & skeletal findings initiated further work up with fulfillment of the criteria required for the clinical diagnosis of Sotos syndrome.

Early Neurologic Recovery, Practice Pattern Variation, and the Risk of Endotracheal Intubation Following Established Status Epilepticus

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the association between early neurologic recovery, practice pattern variation, and endotracheal intubation during established status epilepticus, we performed a secondary analysis within the cohort of patients enrolled in the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT).

METHODS

We evaluated factors associated with the endpoint of endotracheal intubation occurring within 120 minutes of ESETT study drug initiation. We defined a blocked, stepwise multivariate regression, examining 4 phases during status epilepticus management: (1) baseline characteristics, (2) acute treatment, (3) 20-minute neurologic recovery, and (4) 60-minute recovery, including seizure cessation and improving responsiveness.

RESULTS

Of 478 patients, 117 (24.5%) were intubated within 120 minutes. Among high-enrolling sites, intubation rates ranged from 4% to 32% at pediatric sites and 19% to 39% at adult sites. Baseline characteristics, including seizure precipitant, benzodiazepine dosing, and admission vital signs, provided limited discrimination for predicting intubation (area under the curve [AUC] 0.63). However, treatment at sites with an intubation rate in the highest (vs lowest) quartile strongly predicted endotracheal intubation independently of other treatment variables (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 8.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.08-21.4, model AUC 0.70). Site-specific variation was the factor most strongly associated with endotracheal intubation after adjustment for 20-minute (aOR 23.4, 95% CI 6.99-78.3, model AUC 0.88) and 60-minute (aOR 14.7, 95% CI 3.20-67.5, model AUC 0.98) neurologic recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Endotracheal intubation after established status epilepticus is strongly associated with site-specific practice pattern variation, independently of baseline characteristics, and early neurologic recovery and should not alone serve as a clinical trial endpoint in established status epilepticus.

TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01960075.

Drug Safety in Translational Paediatric Research: Practical Points to Consider for Paediatric Safety Profiling and Protocol Development: A Scoping Review

Translational paediatric drug development includes the exchange between basic, clinical and population-based research to improve the health of children. This includes the assessment of treatment related risks and their management. The objectives of this scoping review were to search and summarise the literature for practical guidance on how to establish a paediatric safety specification and its integration into a paediatric protocol. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and websites of regulatory authorities and learned societies were searched (up to 31 December 2020). Retrieved citations were screened and full texts reviewed where applicable. A total of 3480 publications were retrieved. No article was identified providing practical guidance. An introduction to the practical aspects of paediatric safety profiling and protocol development is provided by combining health authority and learned society guidelines with the specifics of paediatric research. The paediatric safety specification informs paediatric protocol development by, for example, highlighting the need for a pharmacokinetic study prior to a paediatric trial. It also informs safety related protocol sections such as exclusion criteria, safety monitoring and risk management. In conclusion, safety related protocol sections require an understanding of the paediatric safety specification. Safety data from carefully planned paediatric research provide valuable information for children, parents and healthcare providers.

Seven-step framework to enhance practitioner explanations and parental understandings of research without prior consent in paediatric emergency and critical care trials

BACKGROUND

Alternatives to prospective informed consent enable the conduct of paediatric emergency and critical care trials. Research without prior consent (RWPC) involves practitioners approaching parents after an intervention has been given and seeking consent for their child to continue in the trial. As part of an embedded study in the 'Emergency treatment with Levetiracetam or Phenytoin in Status Epilepticus in children' (EcLiPSE) trial, we explored how practitioners described the trial and RWPC during recruitment discussions, and how well this information was understood by parents. We aimed to develop a framework to assist trial conversations in future paediatric emergency and critical care trials using RWPC.

METHODS

Qualitative methods embedded within the EcLiPSE trial processes, including audiorecorded practitioner-parent trial discussions and telephone interviews with parents. We analysed data using thematic analysis, drawing on the Realpe et al (2016) model for recruitment to trials.

RESULTS

We analysed 76 recorded trial discussions and conducted 30 parent telephone interviews. For 19 parents, we had recorded trial discussion and interview data, which were matched for analysis. Parental understanding of the EcLiPSE trial was enhanced when practitioners: provided a comprehensive description of trial aims; explained the reasons for RWPC; discussed uncertainty about which intervention was best; provided a balanced description of trial intervention; provided a clear explanation about randomisation and provided an opportunity for questions. We present a seven-step framework to assist recruitment practice in trials involving RWPC.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a framework to enhance recruitment practice and parental understanding in paediatric emergency and critical care trials involving RWPC. Further testing of this framework is required.

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.

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.

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.

Parents' and clinicians' views on conducting paediatric diagnostic test accuracy studies without prior informed consent: qualitative insight from the Petechiae in Children study (PiC)

OBJECTIVE

The Petechiae in Children (PiC) study assesses the utility of presenting features and rapid diagnostic tests in the diagnosis of serious bacterial infection in feverish children with non-blanching rashes. An embedded qualitative study explored parents' and clinicians' views on the acceptability of the PiC study, including the use of research without prior consent (RWPC) in studies of diagnostic test accuracy.

DESIGN

Semistructured qualitative interviews. Analysis was thematic and broadly interpretive, informed by the constant comparative approach.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifteen parents were interviewed 55 (median) days since their child's hospital attendance (range 13-95). Five clinicians involved in recruitment, and consent were interviewed.

RESULTS

Parents and clinicians supported RWPC for the PiC study and future emergency paediatric diagnostic test accuracy studies as long as there is no harm to the child and emergency care is not delayed. Parents and clinicians made recommendations around the timing and conduct of a consent discussion, which were in line with RWPC guidance. Parents enrolled in the PiC study preferred a design that included consent discussions with the research team over the alternative of 'opt-out' consent only.

CONCLUSIONS

This embedded qualitative study demonstrates that RWPC is appropriate for use in paediatric emergency studies of diagnostic test accuracy and that the approach used in PiC was appropriate. Future diagnostic studies involving additional invasive procedures or an opt-out only approach to consent would benefit from exploring parent and clinician views on acceptability at the pretrial stage.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03378258.

Levetiracetam versus phenytoin for second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus (EcLiPSE): a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Phenytoin is the recommended second-line intravenous anticonvulsant for treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus in the UK; however, some evidence suggests that levetiracetam could be an effective and safer alternative. This trial compared the efficacy and safety of phenytoin and levetiracetam for second-line management of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus.

METHODS

This open-label, randomised clinical trial was undertaken at 30 UK emergency departments at secondary and tertiary care centres. Participants aged 6 months to under 18 years, with convulsive status epilepticus requiring second-line treatment, were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated randomisation schedule to receive levetiracetam (40 mg/kg over 5 min) or phenytoin (20 mg/kg over at least 20 min), stratified by centre. The primary outcome was time from randomisation to cessation of convulsive status epilepticus, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (excluding those who did not require second-line treatment after randomisation and those who did not provide consent). This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN22567894.

FINDINGS

Between July 17, 2015, and April 7, 2018, 1432 patients were assessed for eligibility. After exclusion of ineligible patients, 404 patients were randomly assigned. After exclusion of those who did not require second-line treatment and those who did not consent, 286 randomised participants were treated and had available data: 152 allocated to levetiracetam, and 134 to phenytoin. Convulsive status epilepticus was terminated in 106 (70%) children in the levetiracetam group and in 86 (64%) in the phenytoin group. Median time from randomisation to cessation of convulsive status epilepticus was 35 min (IQR 20 to not assessable) in the levetiracetam group and 45 min (24 to not assessable) in the phenytoin group (hazard ratio 1·20, 95% CI 0·91-1·60; p=0·20). One participant who received levetiracetam followed by phenytoin died as a result of catastrophic cerebral oedema unrelated to either treatment. One participant who received phenytoin had serious adverse reactions related to study treatment (hypotension considered to be immediately life-threatening [a serious adverse reaction] and increased focal seizures and decreased consciousness considered to be medically significant [a suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction]).

INTERPRETATION

Although levetiracetam was not significantly superior to phenytoin, the results, together with previously reported safety profiles and comparative ease of administration of levetiracetam, suggest it could be an appropriate alternative to phenytoin as the first-choice, second-line anticonvulsant in the treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

A Comparison of Parenteral Phenobarbital vs. Parenteral Phenytoin as Second-Line Management for Pediatric Convulsive Status Epilepticus in a Resource-Limited Setting

Introduction: Pediatric convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) which is refractory to first-line benzodiazepines is a significant clinical challenge, especially within resource-limited countries. Parenteral phenobarbital is widely used in Africa as second-line agent for pediatric CSE, however evidence to support its use is limited. Purpose: This study aimed to compare the use of parenteral phenobarbital against parenteral phenytoin as a second-line agent in the management of pediatric CSE. Methodology: An open-labeled single-center randomized parallel clinical trial was undertaken which included all children (between ages of 1 month and 15 years) who presented with CSE. Children were allocated to receive either parenteral phenobarbital or parenteral phenytoin if they did not respond to first-line benzodiazepines. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed with the investigators blinded to the treatment arms. The primary outcome measure was the success of terminating CSE. Secondary outcomes included the need for admission to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and breakthrough seizures during the admission. In addition, local epidemiological data was collected on the burden of pediatric CSE. Results: Between 2015 and 2018, 193 episodes of CSE from 111 children were enrolled in the study of which 144 met the study requirements. Forty-two percent had a prior history of epilepsy mostly from structural brain pathology (53%). The most common presentation was generalized CSE (65%) caused by acute injuries or infections of the central nervous system (59%), with 19% of children having febrile status epilepticus. Thirty-five percent of children required second-line management. More patients who received parenteral phenobarbital were at a significantly reduced risk of failing second-line treatment compared to those who received parenteral phenytoin (RR = 0.3, p = 0.0003). Phenobarbital also terminated refractory CSE faster (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, patients who received parenteral phenobarbital were less likely to need admission to the PICU. There was no difference between the two groups in the number of breakthrough seizures that occurred during admission. Conclusion: Overall this study supports anecdotal evidence that phenobarbital is a safe and effective second-line treatment for the management of pediatric CSE. These results advocate for parenteral phenobarbital to remain available to health care providers managing pediatric CSE in resource-limited settings. Attachments: CONSORT 2010 checklist Trial registration: NCT03650270 Full trial protocol available: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03650270?recrs=e&type=Intr&cond=Status+Epilepticus&age=0&rank=1.

Meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness of second-line antiepileptic drugs for status epilepticus

Objective

Compare the cost and effectiveness of nonbenzodiazepine antiepileptic drugs (non-BZD AEDs) for treatment of BZD-resistant convulsive status epilepticus (SE).

Methods

Decision analysis model populated with effectiveness data from a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature, and cost data from publicly available prices. The primary outcome was cost per seizure stopped ($/SS). Sensitivity analyses evaluated the robustness of the results across a wide variation of the input parameters.

Results

We included 24 studies with 1,185 SE episodes. The most effective non-BZD AED was phenobarbital (PB) with a probability of SS of 0.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69–0.88), followed by valproate (VPA) (0.71 [95% CI: 0.61–0.79]), lacosamide (0.66 [95% CI: 0.51–0.79]), levetiracetam (LEV) (0.62 [95% CI: 0.5–0.73]), and phenytoin/fosphenytoin (PHT) (0.53 [95% CI: 0.39–0.67]). In pairwise comparisons, PB was more effective than PHT (p = 0.002), VPA was more effective than PHT (p = 0.043), and PB was more effective than LEV (p = 0.018). The most cost-effective non-BZD AED was LEV (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: $18.55/SS), followed by VPA (ICER: $94.44/SS), and lastly PB (ICER: $847.22/SS). PHT and lacosamide were not cost-effective compared to the other options. Sensitivity analyses showed marked overlap in cost-effectiveness, but PHT was consistently less cost-effective than LEV, VPA, and PB.

Conclusion

VPA and PB were more effective than PHT for SE. There is substantial overlap in the cost-effectiveness of non-BZD AEDs for SE, but available evidence does not support the preeminence of PHT, neither in terms of effectiveness nor in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Enhancing practitioners' confidence in recruitment and consent in the EcLiPSE trial: a mixed-method evaluation of site training - a Paediatric Emergency Research in the United Kingdom and Ireland (PERUKI) study

Background

EcLiPSE (Emergency treatment with Levetiracetam or Phenytoin in Status Epilepticus in children) is a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in the United Kingdom. Challenges to success include the need to immediately administer an intervention without informed consent and changes in staffing during trial conduct, mainly due to physician rotations. Using literature on parents’ perspectives and research without prior consent (RWPC) guidance, we developed an interactive training package (including videos, simulation and question and answer sessions) and evaluated its dissemination and impact upon on practitioners’ confidence in recruitment and consent.

Methods

Questionnaires were administered before and immediately after training followed by telephone interviews (mean 11 months later), focus groups (mean 14 months later) and an online questionnaire (8 months before trial closure).

Results

One hundred and twenty-five practitioners from 26/30 (87%) participating hospitals completed a questionnaire before and after training. We conducted 10 interviews and six focus groups (comprising 36 practitioners); 199 practitioners working in all recruiting hospitals completed the online questionnaire. Before training, practitioners were concerned about recruitment and consent. Confidence increased after training for explaining (all scale 0–5, 95% CIs above 0 and p values < 0.05): the study (66% improved mean score before 3.28 and after 4.52), randomisation (47% improvement, 3.86 to 4.63), RWPC (72% improvement, 2.98 to 4.39), and addressing parents’ objections to randomisation (51% improvement, 3.37 to 4.25). Practitioners rated highly the content and clarity of the training, which was successfully disseminated. Some concerns about staff availability for training and consent discussions remained.

Conclusions

Training improved practitioners’ confidence in recruitment and RWPC. Our findings highlight the value of using parents’ perspectives to inform training and to engage practitioners in trials that are at high risk of being too challenging to conduct.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3273-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Levetiracetam for epilepsy: an evidence map of efficacy, safety and economic profiles

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy, safety and economics of levetiracetam (LEV) for epilepsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, OpenGrey.eu and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for systematic reviews (SRs), meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, case reports and economic studies published from January 2007 to April 2018. We used a bubble plot to graphically display information of included studies and conducted meta-analyses to quantitatively synthesize the evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 14,803 records were obtained. We included 30 SRs/meta-analyses, 34 RCTs, 18 observational studies, 58 case reports and 2 economic studies after the screening process. The included SRs enrolled patients with pediatric epilepsy, epilepsy in pregnancy, focal epilepsy, generalized epilepsy and refractory focal epilepsy. Meta-analysis of the included RCTs indicated that LEV was as effective as carbamazepine (CBZ; treatment for 6 months: 58.9% vs 64.8%, OR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.50-1.16; 12 months: 54.9% vs 55.5%, OR=1.24, 95% CI: 0.79-1.93), oxcarbazepine (57.7% vs 59.8%, OR=1.34, 95% CI: 0.34-5.23), phenobarbital (50.0% vs 50.9%, OR=1.20, 95% CI: 0.51-2.82) and lamotrigine (LTG; 61.5% vs 57.7%, OR=1.22, 95% CI: 0.90-1.66). SRs and observational studies indicated a low malformation rate and intrauterine death rate for pregnant women, as well as low risk of cognitive side effects. But psychiatric and behavioral side effects could not be ruled out. LEV decreased discontinuation due to adverse events compared with CBZ (OR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.41-0.65), while no difference was found when LEV was compared with placebo and LTG. Two cost-effectiveness evaluations for refractory epilepsy with decision-tree model showed US$ 76.18 per seizure-free day gained in Canada and US$ 44 per seizure-free day gained in Korea.

CONCLUSION

LEV is as effective as CBZ, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital and LTG and has an advantage for pregnant women and in cognitive functions. Limited evidence supports its cost-effectiveness.

REGISTERED NUMBER

PROSPERO (No CRD 42017069367).

The "Petechiae in children" (PiC) study: evaluating potential clinical decision rules for the management of feverish children with non-blanching rashes, including the role of point of care testing for Procalcitonin & Neisseria meningitidis DNA - a study protocol

Background

Children commonly present to Emergency Departments (ED) with a non-blanching rash in the context of a feverish illness. While most have a self-limiting viral illness, this combination of features potentially represents invasive serious bacterial infection, including meningococcal septicaemia. A paucity of definitive diagnostic testing creates diagnostic uncertainty for clinicians; a safe approach mandates children without invasive disease are often admitted and treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics. Conversely, a cohort of children still experience significant mortality and morbidity due to late diagnosis. Current management is based on evidence which predates (i) the introduction of meningococcal B and C vaccines and (ii) availability of point of care testing (POCT) for procalcitonin (PCT) and Neisseria meningitidis DNA.

Methods

This PiC study is a prospective diagnostic accuracy study evaluating (i) rapid POCT for PCT and N. meningitidis DNA and (ii) performance of existing clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for feverish children with non-blanching rash. All children presenting to the ED with a history of fever and non-blanching rash are eligible. Children are managed as normal, with detailed prospective collection of data pertinent to CPGs, and a throat swab and blood used for rapid POCT. The study is running over 2 years and aims to recruit 300 children.

Primary objective:

Report on the diagnostic accuracy of POCT for (i) N. meningitidis DNA and (ii) PCT in the diagnosis of early MD

Report on the diagnostic accuracy of POCT for PCT in the diagnosis of Invasive bacterial infection

Secondary objectives:

Evaluate the performance accuracy of existing CPGs

Evaluate cost-effectiveness of available diagnostic testing strategies

Explore views of (i) families and (ii) clinicians on research without prior consent using qualitative methodology

Report on the aetiology of NBRs in children with a feverish illness

Discussion

The PiC study will provide important information for policy makers regarding the value of POCT and on the utility and cost of emerging diagnostic strategies. The study will also identify which elements of existing CPGs may merit inclusion in any future study to derive clinical decision rules for this population.

Trial registration

NCT03378258. Retrospectively registered on December 19, 2017.

Children's views on research without prior consent in emergency situations: a UK qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

We explored children's views on research without prior consent (RWPC) and sought to identify ways of involving children in research discussions.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study.

SETTING

Participants were recruited through a UK children's hospital and online advertising.

PARTICIPANTS

16 children aged 7-15 years with a diagnosis of asthma (n=14) or anaphylaxis (n=2) with recent (<12 months) experience of emergency care.

RESULTS

Children were keen to be included in medical research and viewed RWPC as acceptable in emergency situations if trial interventions were judged safe. Children trusted that doctors would know about their trial participation and act in their best interests. All felt that children should be informed about the research following their recovery and involved in discussions with a clinician or their parent(s) about the use of data already collected as well as continued participation in the trial (if applicable). Participants suggested methods to inform children about their trial participation including an animation.

CONCLUSIONS

Children supported, and were keen to be involved in, clinical trials in emergency situations. We present guidance and an animation that practitioners and parents might use to involve children in trial discussions following their recovery.

An update in the initial management of paediatric status epilepticus

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Over the last 2 years, algorithms for the optimal management of status epilepticus have changed, as the medical community has recognized the need to terminate seizures in status in a timely manner. Recent research has evaluated the different choices of benzodiazepine and has given consideration to second-line treatment options.

RECENT FINDINGS

There has been a move to examine alternatives to phenytoin (such as levetiracetam and lacosamide) as second-line agents. Valproate should be used cautiously in view of the potential side effects. Three ongoing trials [Established Staus Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT), Convulsive Status Epilepticus Paediatric Trial (ConSEPT), and emergency treatment with levetiracetam or phenytoin in status epilepticus in children (EcLiPSE)] are comparing the efficacy of levetiracetam and phenytoin.

SUMMARY

Benzodiazepines remain the first-line agent of choice, although there is ongoing discussion about the mode of administration and the best drug to choose. The results of ESETT, ConSEPT, and EcLiPSE will affect our future management of status, as we give consideration to levetiracetam as an alternative to phenytoin. Other medications such as lacosamide may emerge in future algorithms too.