Effectiveness of topiramate in medically complicated patients with status epilepticus or acute refractory seizures

Efficacy of topiramate as an add-on therapy in patients with refractory status epilepticus: a short systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify current evidence on the use of topiramate for refractory status epilepticus.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature to investigate the efficacy of topiramate in the treatment of refractory status epilepticus. The search terms used were "status epilepticus", "refractory", "treatment" and "topiramate". No restrictions were used.

RESULTS

The search yielded 487 articles that reported using topiramate as a treatment for refractory status epilepticus and its outcomes. Case reports, review articles, and animal experiments were excluded. After excluding duplicates and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, nine studies were included for analyses. Descriptive and qualitative analyses were performed, and the results were as follows: response rates (defined as termination in-hospital until 72 hours after the administration of topiramate) varied from 27% to 100%. The mortality rate varied from 5.9% to 68%. Positive functional long-term outcomes, defined as discharge, back to baseline or rehabilitation, were documented by seven studies, and the rates ranged between 4% and 55%. Most studies reported no or mild adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Topiramate was effective in terminating refractory status epilepticus, presented relatively low mortality and was well tolerated. Therefore, topiramate could be a good option as a third-line therapy for refractory status epilepticus, but further studies are necessary.

Therapeutic Options for Patients with Refractory Status Epilepticus in Palliative Settings or with a Limitation of Life-Sustaining Therapies: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Refractory status epilepticus (RSE) represents a serious medical condition requiring early and targeted therapy. Given the increasing number of elderly or multimorbid patients with a limitation of life-sustaining therapy (LOT) or within a palliative care setting (PCS), guidelines-oriented therapy escalation options for RSE have to be omitted frequently.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review sought to summarize the evidence for fourth-line antiseizure drugs (ASDs) and other minimally or non-invasive therapeutic options beyond guideline recommendations in patients with RSE to elaborate on possible treatment options for patients undergoing LOT or in a PCS.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, focusing on fourth-line ASDs or other minimally or non-invasive therapeutic options was performed in February and June 2020 using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. The search terminology was constructed using the name of the specific ASD or therapy option and the term 'status epilepticus' with the use of Boolean operators, e.g. "(brivaracetam) AND (status epilepticus)". The respective Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Emtree terms were used, if available.

RESULTS

There is currently no level 1, grade A evidence for the use of ASDs in RSE. The best evidence was found for the use of lacosamide and topiramate (level 3, grade C), followed by brivaracetam, perampanel (each level 4, grade D) and stiripentol, oxcarbazepine and zonisamide (each level 5, grade D). Regarding non-medicinal options, there is little evidence for the use of the ketogenic diet (level 4, grade D) and magnesium sulfate (level 5, grade D) in RSE. The broad use of immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive treatment options in the absence of a presumed autoimmune etiology cannot be recommended; however, if an autoimmune etiology is assumed, steroid pulse, intravenous immunoglobulins and plasma exchange/plasmapheresis should be considered (level 4, grade D). Even if several studies suggested that the use of neurosteroids (level 5, grade D) is beneficial in RSE, the current data situation indicates that there is formal evidence against it.

CONCLUSIONS

RSE in patients undergoing LOT or in a PCS represents a challenge for modern clinicians and epileptologists. The evidence for the use of ASDs in RSE beyond that in current guidelines is low, but several effective and well-tolerated options are available that should be considered in this patient population. More so than in any other population, advance care planning, advance directives, and medical ethical aspects have to be considered carefully before and during therapy.

Antiseizure medications in critical care: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Seizures and status epilepticus are very common diagnoses in the critically ill patient and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There is an abundance of research on the utility of antiseizure medications in this setting, but limited randomized-controlled trials to guide the selection of medications in these patients. This review examines the current guidelines and treatment strategies for status epilepticus and provides an update on newer antiseizure medications in the critical care settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Time is brain applies to status epilepticus, with delays in treatment corresponding with worsened outcomes. Establishing standardized treatment protocols within a health system, including prehospital treatment, may lead to improved outcomes. Once refractory status epilepticus is established, continuous deep sedation with intravenous anesthetic agents should be effective. In cases, which prove highly refractory, novel approaches should be considered, with recent data suggesting multiple recently approved antiseizure medications, appropriate therapeutic options, as well as novel approaches to upregulate extrasynaptic γ-aminobutyric acid channels with brexanolone.

SUMMARY

Although there are many new treatments to consider for seizures and status epilepticus in the critically ill patient, the most important predictor of outcome may be rapid diagnosis and treatment. There are multiple new and established medications that can be considered in the treatment of these patients once status epilepticus has become refractory, and a multidrug regimen will often be necessary.

Risk factors associated with the development of seizures among adult patients treated with ertapenem: A matched case-control study

Objective

The purpose of this study is to compare the characteristics of those ertapenem-treated adult patients with and without development of seizures, and identify the associated factors for the development of seizures.

Methods

This retrospective study was conducted at Chia-Yi Christian Hospital from January 2012 to December 2014. Patients developing seizures during their ertapenem treatment course were identified as case patients. Those without seizures who had received ertapenem for at least five days were considered as the pool of control patients. For each case patient, four matched patients from the control pool were randomly selected as the final control group, based on age, gender, and the date of ertapenem prescription.

Results

A total of 1706 ertapenem-treated patients were identified, 33 (1.9%) individuals developed seizures with the enrollment of 132 matched control patients. Among these 33 patients, the average age was 79.3 ± 7.5 years, and 20 (60.6%) were male. The mean Charlson co-morbidity score was 4.5 ± 2.4, and the first episode of seizure happened 3.3 ± 2.6 days after receiving ertapenem. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the independent predictors associated with the development of ertapenem-associated seizures were old stroke (OR, 14.36; 95% CI, 4.38–47.02; p < 0.0001), undergoing brain images within one year prior to the admission (OR, 5.73; 95% CI, 1.78–18.43; p = 0.0034), low hemoglobin level (OR, 3.88; 95% CI, 1.28–12.75; p = 0.0165) and low platelet count (OR, 4,94; 95% CI, 1.56–15.68; p = 0.0067) at presentations, and protective factors against the development of seizures were heart failure (OR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.00–0.63; p = 0.0222), concomitant use of steroids (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05–0.77; p = 0.0201), or antiplatelet agents (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02–0.63, p = 0.0123) with ertapenem.

Conclusions

The development of ertapenem-associated seizures may occur more frequently and much earlier due to its widespread use in treating drug-resistant pathogens, especially when these pathogens emerged worldwide.Our study would help physician to estimate the risk of developing seizure among patients receiving ertapenem.

Topiramate in the Treatment of Generalized Convulsive Status Epilepticus in Adults: A Systematic Review with Individual Patient Data Analysis

BACKGROUND

Generalized convulsive status epilepticus (GCSE) is a medical emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality that requires prompt medical intervention. Topiramate (TPM) is an antiepileptic drug effective against a broad spectrum of seizure types, and has been proposed as a possible therapeutic option for super-refractory status epilepticus (SRSE), the most severe form of GCSE.

AIM

This review aimed to evaluate the role of TPM in GCSE, including SRSE.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, LILACS, Google Scholar, and Opengrey.eu were systematically searched. We compared: (1) patients who did and who did not receive TPM as their last drug; (2) patients receiving TPM as the last drug and achieving SE control and patients receiving TPM as the last drug but without termination of SE.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 1164 results, with individual data available for 35 patients (six with SRSE) from four studies. SE was controlled in 68.6% of patients receiving TPM either as the last drug (20) or not (15), and in 14 of the 20 patients receiving TPM as the last drug (70%). Only six patients received TPM for SRSE; in five of them, TPM was administered as the last drug with resolution of SE in four. When comparing patients who did and did not receive TPM as the last drug, no statistically significant difference was found for any of the variables considered; similarly, no difference was found comparing patients receiving TPM as the last drug and achieving SE control with those receiving TPM as the last drug but without termination of SE.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of a statistically significant difference is likely to be due to the small sample size. In only a few patients was TPM used for SRSE. There is an unmet need for high-quality studies to evaluate the role of TPM in GCSE.