[Acute encephalitis with refractory partial status epilepticus treated with early immunotherapies including plasma exchange: a case report]

Thiamylal serum concentration for refractory convulsive status epilepticus while associated decreased concentrations of concomitant antiepileptics: a case report

BACKGROUND

Treating refractory status epilepticus (RSE) remains a challenge. Thiamylal can be used as a second- or third-line treatment; however, its potential to induce cytochrome P450 (CYP) activity may reduce the concentration of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) administered prior to thiamylal. This report details a case of RSE patient treated with thiamylal, with monitored concentrations of thiamylal and other AEDs.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 72-year-old healthy man developed RSE. Despite the administration of various AEDs, his seizures were not resolved. Thiamylal was then administered at an initial bolus dose of 2.1 mg/kg, followed by a continuous infusion of 4.2-5.2 mg/kg/h. The initial thiamylal concentration was observed at 7.8 μg/mL, increasing to 35.2 μg/mL before decreasing after dose reduction and cessation. Concurrently, the concentration of concomitant carbamazepine decreased from 5.59 μg/mL to 2.1 μg/mL and recovered as thiamylal concentration decreased. Lesser impacts were noted for other AEDs.

CONCLUSIONS

This case report underscored the efficacy of thiamylal in treating RSE. However, it also highlighted the need for clinicians to closely monitor the concentrations of concurrent AEDs, especially carbamazepine, during thiamylal therapy.

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.