Efficacy, Safety, and Economics of Intravenous Levetiracetam for Status Epilepticus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Current evidence for adjunct pyridoxine (vitamin B6) for the treatment of behavioral adverse effects associated with levetiracetam: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Levetiracetam (LVT), while an effective treatment for multiple seizure types, is associated with a high incidence of neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPAEs). In predominantly retrospective studies, supplementation with pyridoxine/vitamin B₆ (PN) was associated with improvement in NPAEs in some people. A previous review highlighted a lack of double-blind, controlled trials of PN for the treatment of NPAEs in individuals treated with LVT. The current paper updates the findings from the previous review to include evidence from studies published since June 2019.

METHODS

An updated systematic review of the published literature was performed in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched to identify studies published between June 2019 and 2nd November 2022 in which supplementary PN was initiated for the treatment of LVT-associated NPAEs. All study types were eligible. The risk of bias in randomized trials was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

RESULTS

Seven additional studies were identified: two double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), four retrospective studies, and one retrospective case series. One RCT reported significant improvements from baseline in behavioral adverse events (BAEs) in both the intervention (PN) group and the low-dose control group (both p < 0.05), with a significantly greater improvement in the intervention group (p < 0.001). In the second RCT, differences in BAE severity between PN and placebo groups at the endpoint were not statistically significant. In one retrospective study, subjective irritability was reported to have improved from baseline in 9/20 individuals (45%) treated with supplementary PN. Data for systematic assessments (PHQ-9 and GAD-7) were available for 10 individuals. Assessment by PHQ-9 showed that six individuals improved, two worsened and two had no change. Based on the GAD-7, three people improved, two worsened and five had no change. In the second retrospective study, 18/41 individuals (44%) who commenced PN following the emergence of BAEs showed "significant" improvement. In a separate group of individuals with pre-existing behavioral problems in whom PN treatment was initiated at the same time as commencing LVT, 3/18 (16.7%) developed BAEs. This compared with 79/458 people (17.2%) who were initially treated only with LVT. The third retrospective study compared treatment-related irritability in individuals who had been treated with both LVT and perampanel, either sequentially or concomitantly. Two people who developed irritability while receiving LVT monotherapy were able to continue treatment with the addition of PN. The fourth study reported a significantly lower LVT discontinuation rate in individuals taking PN and a higher rate of improved behavior in those who were able to continue LVT. The case series reported improvements in behavioral symptoms in six people within two to three weeks of commencing supplementary PN.

CONCLUSION

Data published within the last three years add to earlier evidence suggesting that PN might be effective in the treatment of NPAEs associated with LVT. However, the quality of evidence remains poor and only a few prospective trials have been published. Data from placebo-controlled trials are still largely lacking. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to justify any firm recommendation for PN supplementation to treat NPAEs associated with LVT. Further well-designed, prospective trials are warranted.

Phenobarbital versus valproate for generalized convulsive status epilepticus in adults (2): A multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial in China (China 2-P vs. V)

OBJECTIVE

A multicenter study of phenobarbital versus valproate (i.e., the China 2-P vs. V study) was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of phenobarbital and valproate for generalized convulsive status epilepticus (SE) in a multicenter trial design.

METHODS

Three improvements (uniform intravenous pumping, pump speed adjustment according to adverse events and blood drug level monitoring) over a previous study were made regarding an intravenous regimen of phenobarbital and valproate in a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled study. Long-term electroencephalography (EEG) monitoring was performed after initial drug treatment. Termination, relapse, adverse event and poor prognosis rates in patients with generalized convulsive status epilepticus (GCSE) were compared.

RESULTS

The rate of GCSE termination within one hour were significantly higher in the phenobarbital group (33 cases) than in the valproate group (36 cases) (84.8 % vs. 63.9 %, P = 0.048), but the rates of nontermination of EEG epileptic discharge within one hour were similar between the two groups (12.1 % vs. 8.3 %, P = 0.702). The relapse and adverse event rates were not significantly different between groups, but 3 hypoventilation events and 1 hypotension event occurred in the phenobarbital group compared to 0 in the valproate group. There were no cases of epileptiform EEG discharge relapse in the phenobarbital group, compared to 1 case in the valproate group.

CONCLUSIONS

The phenobarbital regimen evaluated in this study has a higher GCSE termination rate than the valproate regimen, indicating that the former is suitable for countries, regions and individuals with limited access to new antiepileptic drugs or limited economic means.

[Pharmacotherapy and intensive care aspects of status epilepticus: update 2020/2021]

Die gezielte Therapie epileptischer Ereignisse und im Speziellen des Status epilepticus (SE) setzt das sichere Erkennen der Krankheitsbilder voraus, wofür gerade bei Formen mit vorwiegend nichtmotorischen Symptomen klinische und elektroenzephalographische Expertise notwendig ist. Die im Jahr 2020 erfolgte Fortschreibung der deutschen Leitlinie zur Behandlung des SE hält an der streng stufengerechten Therapie fest, die eskalierend die Anwendung von Benzodiazepinen, spezifischen Antiepileptika und Anästhetika vorsieht. Bisher ist die Eingrenzung eines in den allermeisten Fällen wirksamen sowie zugleich sicheren und interaktionsfreien Antiepileptikums nicht gelungen. Individuelle Vorerkrankungen und aktuelle Begleitumstände gehen daher genauso wie Erfahrungen des Behandlerteams in die differenzierte Behandlung des SE ein. Insbesondere bei therapierefraktären Formen des SE erweist sich die Therapie als durchaus kompliziert und hat regelhaft intensivmedizinische Implikationen. Mithin ergeben sich im Zuge der modernen SE-Behandlung zahlreiche interdisziplinäre Schnittstellen. Zukünftige wissenschaftliche Fragstellungen werden sich u. a. mit der optimalen Therapie des nonkonvulsiven SE und hier v. a. dem Ausmaß und dem Zeitpunkt von adäquaten Therapieschritten sowie mit assoziierten ethischen Fragen einer Therapieeskalation beschäftigen.

Super-Refractory Status Epilepticus: Prognosis and Recent Advances in Management

Super-refractory status epilepticus (SRSE) is a life-threatening neurological emergency with high morbidity and mortality. It is defined as “status epilepticus (SE) that continues or recurs 24 hours or more after the onset of anesthesia, including those cases in which SE recurs on the reduction or withdrawal of anesthesia.” This condition is resistant to normal protocols used in the treatment of status epilepticus and exposes patients to increased risks of neuronal death, neuronal injury, and disruption of neuronal networks if not treated in a timely manner. It is mainly seen in patients with severe acute onset brain injury or presentation of new-onset refractory status epilepticus (NORSE). The mortality, neurological deficits, and functional impairments are significant depending on the duration of status epilepticus and the resultant brain damage. Research is underway to find the cure for this devastating neurological condition. In this review, we will discuss the wide range of therapies used in the management of SRSE, provide suggestions regarding its treatment, and comment on future directions. The therapies evaluated include traditional and alternative anesthetic agents with antiepileptic agents. The other emerging therapies include hypothermia, steroids, immunosuppressive agents, electrical and magnetic stimulation therapies, emergent respective epilepsy surgery, the ketogenic diet, pyridoxine infusion, cerebrospinal fluid drainage, and magnesium infusion. To date, there is a lack of robust published data regarding the safety and effectiveness of various therapies, and there continues to be a need for large randomized multicenter trials comparing newer therapies to treat this refractory condition.

Neonatal and pediatric oral drug delivery: Hopes and hurdles

The neonatal and pediatric populations have long been neglected concerning the development of oral dosage forms. For close to two decades, caregivers have had to adjust the doses of the off-label medicines and drugs for adults to suit the neonatal and pediatric needs. This is due to the lack of rules and regulations regarding neonates and pediatrics clinical trials while pharmaceutical industries see this as a non-lucrative approach. Despite such limitations, the administration of solid and liquid dosage forms to neonates and pediatrics necessitates the development of new technologies and even new strategies to meet the needs. Current approaches have not only focused on the development of suitable dosage forms but also the advancement of devices to enhance drug administration to pediatrics and neonates. Though current approaches have significantly added to the number of pediatric and neonatal oral dosage formulations on the market, there is still more room for improvement(s). While novel dosage forms including multiparticulates, orodispersible tablets/films, and chewable tablets have extensively been researched, some administration devices (e.g., nipple shield, pill swallowing cup, and solid dosage pen) have also been explored. Although a few of these products are in the market, the concerted efforts of regulation administrative bodies, pharmaceutical industry settings, and scientists in academia have been oriented to address all issues and advance the neonatal and pediatric-centric pharmaceutical products.