A pharmacovigilance study on antiepileptic medications in a paediatric hospital in Italy

OBJECTIVE

The standard treatment for epilepsy is based on the appropriate use of antiseizure medications (ASMs) to prevent the recurrence of seizures. For the newer ASMs, however, little information on their safety profile is available. This work sought to fill this gap by creating a database for ASM use in a paediatric hospital and the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported.

METHODS

This observational single-centre study was conducted from January 2018 to December 2020 and recorded the type of ASM treatment for paediatric epileptic patients cared for at the Neuropsychiatry Unit of the Salesi Paediatric Hospital in Ancona, Italy, as well as any ADRs.

RESULTS

In all, 519 patients were admitted to the ward with a diagnosis of epilepsy, 362 (69.7%) of whom were prescribed ASMs. Valproic acid was the most frequently prescribed drug (29.96%), followed by levetiracetam (13.97%) and carbamazepine (9.16%). We recorded 24 ADRs in 20 patients, half of which (n=12) occurred with polytherapy. Among the ADRs associated with monotherapy, 25% (n=6) were induced by carbamazepine; 12.5% (n=3) were associated with either valproic acid, clonazepam or lamotrigine; 8.3% (n=2) were associated with perampanel, clobazam or levetiracetam; while one patient experienced ADR due to vigabatrin, one due to ethosuximide and one due to cannabidiol. The median patient age was 7.5 years and most ADRs were not serious.

CONCLUSION

During the 3-year observation period, 6% of epileptic patients on ASMs showed one or more ADRs. Carbamazepine was responsible for about a quarter of these reactions, two of which were serious. Half of the ADRs occurred with polytherapy, which often included valproic acid and stiripentol. It is to be hoped that such active pharmacovigilance through the collaboration of hospital pharmacists and physicians will serve to improve the management of treatment.

Which birth weight threshold to start parenteral nutrition? A single center experience

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the need for parenteral nutrition (PN) in infants with a birth weight (BW) between 1250 and 1499 g.

METHODS

Retrospective evaluation of clinical, nutritional, growth and neurodevelopmental data of infants with a BW between 1250 and 1499 g consecutively admitted to our institution between 2004 and 2020.

RESULTS

Of the 503 infants admitted during the study period, 130 (26%) received PN: in 97 (19%) PN was medically indicated, while in 33 (7%) there was no clear indication. Patients who received medically indicated PN were younger, smaller, and sicker than the 373 infants who were managed with enteral nutrition, and their weight gain was lower (14.6 ± 4.1 vs 16.9 ± 4.2 g∙kg^-1∙ d^-1, p = 0.000). Body size at 36 weeks and 2-year anthropometry and neurodevelopment of the infants managed with enteral nutrition were not different from our reference values.

CONCLUSIONS

After lowering the BW threshold for bridging PN from 1500 to 1250 g, we found that PN was started in only 20% of infants with a BW between 1250 and 1500 g. Withholding PN if not medically indicated did not result neither in growth faltering nor in reduced neurodevelopment.