Sudden Cardiac Death or Ventricular Arrythmia in Patients Taking Levetiracetam or Oxcarbazepine.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Levetiracetam is a widely used antiseizure medication. Recent concerns have been raised regarding the potential prolongation of the QT interval by levetiracetam and increased risk of sudden cardiac death. This could have profound implications for patient safety and for prescribing practice. This study assessed the potential association of levetiracetam with cardiac outcomes related to QT interval prolongation. We compared outcomes of patients taking levetiracetam with those taking oxcarbazepine as a comparator medication that has not been associated with prolongation of the QT interval. METHODS: The sample included patients who were newly prescribed levetiracetam or oxcarbazepine from January 31, 2010, to December 31, 2019, using administrative claims data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse (OLDW). The analysis focused on a combined endpoint of sudden cardiac death or ventricular arrythmia, which are both linked to QT interval prolongation. We used a new user design and selected oxcarbazepine as an active comparator with levetiracetam to minimize bias. We used propensity score weighting to balance the levetiracetam and oxcarbazepine cohorts and then performed weighted Cox regressions to evaluate the association of levetiracetam with the combined endpoint. RESULTS: We identified 104,655 enrollees taking levetiracetam and 39,596 enrollees taking oxcarbazepine. At baseline, enrollees taking levetiracetam were older, more likely to have diagnosed epilepsy, and more likely to have diagnosed comorbidities including hypertension, cerebrovascular disease, and coronary artery disease. In the main analysis, we found no significant difference between levetiracetam and oxcarbazepine in the rate of the combined endpoint for the Cox proportional hazards model (hazard ratio [HR] 0.79, 95% CI 0.42-1.47) or Cox regression with time-varying characteristics (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.41-1.50). DISCUSSION: When compared with oxcarbazepine, levetiracetam does not correlate with increased risk of ventricular arrythmia and sudden cardiac death. Our finding does not support the concern for cardiac risk to indicate restriction of levetiracetam use nor the requirement of cardiac monitoring when using it. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that sudden cardiac death and ventricular arrythmia are not more frequent in patients older than 17 years newly prescribed levetiracetam, compared with those prescribed oxcarbazepine.

Effect of levetiracetam on DNA oxidation and glutathione content in a temporal lobe epilepsy model.

Levetiracetam (LEV) is a drug commonly used as an anticonvulsant. However, recent evidence points to a possible role as an antioxidant. We previously demonstrated the antioxidant properties of LEV by significantly increasing catalase and superoxide dismutase activities and decreasing the hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) levels in the hippocampus of rats with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) showing scavenging properties against the hydroxyl radical. The aim of the present work was to evaluate, the effect of LEV on DNA oxidation, by determining 8­hydroxy­2­deoxyguanosine (8­OHdG) levels, and glutathione content, through reduced (GSH) and oxidized (GSSG) glutathione levels, in the hippocampus of rats with TLE. Male Wistar rats were assigned to the control (CTRL), CTRL+LEV, epileptic (EPI) and EPI+LEV groups. TLE was induced using the lithium­pilocarpine model. Thirteen weeks after TLE induction, LEV was administered for one week through osmotic pumps implanted subcutaneously. The determination of 8­OHdG, GSH and GSSG levels were measured using spectrophotometric methods. We showed that LEV alone significantly increased 8­OHdG and GSSG levels in the hippocampus of control rats compared to those in epileptic condition. No significant differences in GSH levels were observed. LEV could induce changes in the hippocampus increasing DNA oxidation and GSSG levels under nonepileptic condition but not protecting against the mitochondrial dysfunction observed in TLE probably by mechanisms related to changes in chromatin structure, neuroinflammation and alterations in redox components.

Efficacy and Safety of Levetiracetam for Childhood Epilepsies.

Background: Levetiracetam (LEV) is a broad spectrum second-generation antiepileptic drug (AED). Objective: The objective of the study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam for childhood epilepsies. Methods: This is single, tertiary centre observational, prospective study, that included paediatric patients who were treated with levetiracetam at Paediatric hospital University Clinical Centre Sarajevo, during the period of 15 years (2008-2022). Inclusion criteria were: paediatric patients age > 1 month, diagnosed with epilepsy according to International League Against Epilepsy. After the introduction of levetiracetam, each patient has been followed up at least 12 months. According to the outcome the patients were divided into 5 groups: seizure reduction >50%, seizure reduction <50%, complete seizure freedom, the same number of seizures and increased number of seizures. From these groups two intergroups have been formed: responders (seizure reduction >50% and complete seizure freedom) and non-responders (seizure reduction <50%, the same number of seizures and increased number of seizures). Results: The study enrolled 259 patients (141 female and 118 male), with mean age 7 years (3,0-12.0). Comorbidities were present at 129/259 (49.8%) patients. After 12 months of treatment, 25/259 (9.7%) patients had seizure reduction >50%, 30/259 (11.6%) patients had seizure reduction <50%, 154/259 (56.5%) patients had achieved seizure freedom, 31/259 (12%) patients had same number of seizures, while 19/259 (7.3%) patients had increased number of seizures. Seizure frequency between responders and non-responders, before treatment and after 12 months of treatment was statistically significant (p<0.001). Discussion: Non responders had the best outcome with ditherapy (30/79; 38%), while responders had the best outcome with monotherapy (161/180;89.4%). Conclusion: Levetiracetam is efficient antiepileptic drug for different types of epilepsies in childhood, used as mono, di or polytherapy.

Comparative analysis of adverse drug reactions associated with new antiseizure medications from the Korea Adverse Event Reporting System database.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare and characterize the safety profiles of new antiseizure medications (ASMs) using a nationwide pharmacovigilance database from a long-term perspective in Korea. METHODS: We reviewed adverse event reports from the Korea Adverse Event Reporting System database between January 2013 and December 2022 for descriptive analysis of six new ASMs (lacosamide, levetiracetam, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, topiramate, and zonisamide). We investigated the frequency and characteristics of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) based on the MedDRA terminology, system organ classes, and modified WHO classification. RESULTS: We identified 5,733 reported cases of ADRs. The commonly reported ADRs associated with total ASMs were rash/urticaria (1,822, 31.8 %), dizziness (409, 7.1 %), somnolence/drowsiness (311, 5.4 %), and hepatotoxic effects (273, 4.8 %). Type B (idiosyncratic) effects (2,932; 51.1 %) were more commonly reported than Type A (related to known drug mechanisms) effects (2,613; 45.6 %). Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders and type B effects were most commonly reported for lamotrigine and oxcarbazepine, whereas nervous system disorders and type A effects were most commonly reported for lacosamide, topiramate, and zonisamide. The pediatric group (<18 years) exhibited skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders and type B effects relatively more frequently than the adult and older adult groups. CONCLUSION: Hypersensitivity skin reactions and type B effects remained significant ADRs in the new ASMs; however, type A effects were more commonly reported in some ASMs. The pediatric group showed a higher rate of type B effects. Overall, new ASMs should also be used with caution.

Toxic optic neuropathy associated with lamotrigine and levetiracetam dual therapy.

We report the case of an early adolescent male on lamotrigine and levetiracetam therapy with a 1-month history of progressive, bilateral, painless visual loss which resolved on cessation of lamotrigine. To our knowledge, we present the first case of lamotrigine and levetiracetam dual therapy associated with toxic optic neuropathy, supported by electrophysiology and optical coherence tomography (OCT) changes. Electrophysiology findings were consistent with retinal ganglion cell dysfunction, with bilateral optic nerve involvement. Macula OCT showed mild retinal ganglion cell loss in all inner quadrants bilaterally. This case highlights the importance of asking patients with epilepsy treated with lamotrigine and levetiracetam about visual problems and considering early dose reduction or cessation of treatment.

Psychiatric and behavioral concerns of perampanel with concomitant levetiracetam in children with epilepsy.

PURPOSE: Perampanel (PER) is expanding the therapeutic scope for pediatric epilepsy owing to its efficacy and favorable safety profile. However, concerns about psychiatric and behavioral adverse events (PBAEs) in combination therapy with levetiracetam (LEV) continue to contribute to hesitation in its prescription. We investigated the risk profiles for PBAEs when adding PER to pediatric epilepsy treatment and analyzed the differences according to the presence of concomitant LEV. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of children aged 4-18 years with epilepsy who were prescribed PER as adjunctive therapy from March 2016 to February 2023. We compared the occurrence and management of PBAEs between the PER without LEV and PER with LEV groups. The risk factors for PBAEs were also analyzed. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients (53 boys and 41 girls) were included in this study. The median age of total patients at the time of adding PER was 14.9 years (12.3-16.4 years), and 53 patients (56.4 %) had concomitant LEV. Forty-seven PBAEs occurred in 34 patients (36.2 %), with no significant differences depending on whether concomitant LEV is present or not. The most common PBAEs were aggression (14.9 %), irritability (9.6 %), affect lability (7.4 %), and acute psychosis (6.4 %). PBAEs occurred at a lower dosage (2-6 mg/day) in 70.6 % of the patients. In addition, 73.5 % of patients with PBAEs continued PER treatment by follow-up observation or by reducing the PER dosage. No risk factors, such as the presence of concomitant LEV or lamotrigine, any comorbid conditions, higher PER dosage (8-12 mg/day), two or more concomitant anti-seizure medications, and younger age (<13 years) at PER add-on, showed significant associations. CONCLUSION: When expanding the use of anti-seizure medications in pediatric patients, real-world evidence on safety issues is crucial for pediatric epileptologists. We confirmed that combination therapy with PER and LEV did not increase the risk profile of PBAEs.

Psychiatric assessment prior to and after switch from levetiracetam to brivaracetam.

PURPOSE: Brivaracetam is often used as an alternative to levetiracetam in patients with epilepsy (PWE) encountering efficacy issues or adverse events with levetiracetam. This study evaluated the psychological status of PWE who were switched from levetiracetam to brivaracetam due to psychiatric tolerability concerns in comparison to those who remained on levetiracetam. METHODS: We used various psychological assessments including the Symptom Checklist SCL-90-R, the Beck Depression Inventory-II, and the adverse event profile. Eligible participants completed the questionnaires at baseline and again 8 days later. Psychological changes were assessed using standard statistical methods to show differences between a group that immediately switched from levetiracetam to brivaracetam and another group with unchanged levetiracetam. RESULTS: Between May 2020 and May 2021, 63 patients participated in the study, of whom 34 switched from levetiracetam to brivaracetam. At baseline, participants who switched to brivaracetam had fewer antiseizure medications but experienced more monthly seizures. Baseline scores for anxiety (p = 0.020) and psychoticism (p = 0.046) on SCL-90-R in PWE switched to brivaracetam were higher than in the remaining group. In the subsequent assessment, all psychological scores were reduced and were no longer significantly different between both groups. Using multiple regression, initial treatment with a single antiseizure medication and male gender emerged as predictors of psychological improvement. CONCLUSION: Our study found no increased risk of adverse events or psychiatric symptoms after switching from levetiracetam to brivaracetam. Though statistically non-significant, a trend towards improved psychiatric outcomes in the switch group warrants further investigation in future trials with stronger designs for enhanced statistical power.

Real-world safety of Levetiracetam: Mining and analysis of its adverse drug reactions based on FAERS database.

INTRODUCTION: Levetiracetam is a relatively new and widely utilized anti-seizure medication; however, limited information is available regarding its adverse effects. This study aims to thoroughly investigate, evaluate, and present evidence on the safety profile of Levetiracetam, relying on data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database to facilitate informed clinical decision-making. METHODS: We employed various statistical measures, including Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR), Proportionate Reporting Ratio (PRR), and analysis by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), to identify signals of adverse reactions associated with Levetiracetam. Positive signals consistent with Designated Medical Event (DME) were singled out for focused comparison and discussion. RESULTS: The analysis of 26,182 adverse events linked to Levetiracetam as the primary suspected drug revealed 692 positive signals spanning 22 System Organ Classes (SOCs). Nervous system disorders were the most frequently reported, followed by psychiatric disorders, and general disorders and administration site conditions. 11 positive signals consistent with Preferred Terms (PTs) in DME were identified, predominantly concentrated in 6 SOCs. Among these, rhabdomyolysis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) exhibited relatively large values of A, ROR, and Chi-squared. Additionally, PTs related to spontaneous abortion, drug interaction, urethral atresia, ventricular septal defect, and atrial septal defect showed significant strength. CONCLUSIONS: The study indicates that Levetiracetam carries a potential risk of causing rhabdomyolysis, SJS, TEN, DRESS as well as spontaneous abortion. Signals related to drug interaction, urethral atresia, ventricular septal defect, and atrial septal defect warrant heightened attention in clinical use.

The teratogenesis risk associated with antiseizure medication duotherapy in women with epilepsy.

PURPOSE: To investigate rates of occurrence of pregnancies associated with a foetal malformation (FM pregnancy rates) following simultaneous intrauterine exposure to two antiseizure medications in 524 pregnancies in women with epilepsy from the Australian Pregnancy Register who were treated simultaneously with various combinations and dosages of two antiseizure medications (duotherapy). RESULTS: FM pregnancy rates tended to be higher in those exposed simultaneously to two antiseizure medications, each of which was a statistically significant teratogen (valproate, topiramate, or carbamazepine), than when there was exposure to only one such teratogen. When there was exposure to only one such teratogen together with clonazepam or levetiracetam, for neither of which there was statistically significant evidence of heightened teratogenicity, the FM pregnancy rates also tended to be higher, but less so. When lamotrigine was the other component of the duotherapy with an established teratogen, FM pregnancy rates tended to be lower than that for the teratogen used as monotherapy. CONCLUSION: Leaving aside issues in relation to seizure control, our data suggest that it would be best to avoid using established teratogenic antiseizure medications (carbamazepine, valproate and topiramate) in combination with each other due to the increased FM risks. When combining an established teratogenic medication with a less teratogenic one, i.e. lamotrigine, levetiracetam or clonazepam, lamotrigine appears to be the safer option.

Stevens-Johnson Syndrome in a Patient on Concomitant Treatment with Levetiracetam and Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole.

BACKGROUND Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and levetiracetam are commonly prescribed medications in the treatment of infections and seizures, respectively. Despite their known efficacy, each has a reputation for triggering severe and sometimes life-threatening cutaneous adverse drug reactions such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis. Although the mechanism of such cutaneous adverse drug reactions cannot be fully explained, it is thought to be a type IV T cell and NK cells-mediated hypersensitivity reaction that leads to keratinocyte apoptosis and epidermal necrosis. It is also thought that cutaneous adverse drug reactions are also linked to a patient's genetic predispositions, especially the human leukocyte antigens profiles and the N-acetyl transferase 2 phenotypic variation. CASE REPORT We describe a case of Stevens-Johnson syndrome in a severely ill 51-year-old man who was treated in an outside health care facility simultaneously with Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and levetiracetam. The patient presented to our Emergency Department with Stevens-Johnson syndrome believed to possibly be related to the combination of these 2 agents. CONCLUSIONS The concomitant use of Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and levetiracetam might have been responsible for heightening the potential of these 2 medications to trigger an unfortunate adverse drug reaction, but no formal culprit was able to be identified and no in vivo study was performed, due to ethical considerations. Thus, through this case report we strive to increase awareness of the potential risk of simultaneously prescribing these 2 medications.

Topiramate ban in women of childbearing potential with idiopathic generalized epilepsy: Does effectiveness offset the teratogenic risks?

Regulatory agencies have recently discouraged the prescription of topiramate (TPM) to women of childbearing potential with epilepsy due to growing evidence of the teratogenic and neurodevelopmental risks associated with its use during pregnancy. It remains, however, unclear whether the use of TPM in this population can be supported to some extent by its high effectiveness. In this multicenter, retrospective, cohort study performed at 22 epilepsy centers, we investigated the comparative effectiveness of TPM and levetiracetam (LEV) given as first-line antiseizure medication in a cohort of women of childbearing potential with idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE). A total of 336 participants were included, of whom 24 (7.1%) received TPM and 312 (92.9%) LEV. Women treated with TPM had significantly higher risks of treatment failure and treatment withdrawal and were less likely to achieve seizure freedom at 12 months compared to women treated with LEV. In conclusion, this study highlighted a low tendency among clinicians to use TPM in women of childbearing potential with IGE, anticipating the recently released restrictions on its use. Furthermore, the available data on effectiveness do not appear to support the use of TPM in this population.

Antiepileptic treatment with levetiracetam during the first trimester and pregnancy outcome: An observational study.

OBJECTIVE: Levetiracetam is increasingly used in pregnant women with epilepsy. Although teratogenic effects have not been observed so far, data on the risks of spontaneous abortion and major birth defects are still limited, especially for the frequently used dual therapy of levetiracetam and lamotrigine. Our primary aim was to analyze rates of major birth defects and spontaneous abortion after maternal levetiracetam treatment. METHODS: This was a cohort study based on pregnancies recorded by the Embryotox Center from 2000 to 2017. Outcomes of prospectively ascertained pregnancies with first trimester levetiracetam monotherapy (n = 221) were compared to pregnancies with lamotrigine monotherapy for epilepsy (n = 469). In addition, all pregnancies with levetiracetam (n = 364) exposure during the first trimester were analyzed in comparison to a nonexposed cohort (n = 729). Pregnancies with the most frequently used combination therapy comprising levetiracetam and lamotrigine (n = 80) were evaluated separately. RESULTS: There was no significantly increased risk of major birth defects or of spontaneous abortions after first trimester exposure to levetiracetam. Birth weight of male neonates was significantly lower after levetiracetam monotherapy compared to lamotrigine monotherapy. Dual therapy with levetiracetam and lamotrigine resulted in a significantly increased risk of spontaneous abortion (adjusted hazard ratio = 3.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.43-6.33) and a nonsignificant effect estimate for major birth defects (7.7%, n = 5/65, adjusted odds ratio = 1.47, 95% CI = .48-4.47) compared to a nonexposed cohort. SIGNIFICANCE: Our study confirms the use of levetiracetam as a suitable antiepileptic drug in pregnancy. The lower birth weight of male neonates after maternal levetiracetam monotherapy and the unexpectedly high risk of spontaneous abortion and birth defects after dual therapy with levetiracetam and lamotrigine require further investigation.

Evaluation of the safety and tolerability of intravenous undiluted levetiracetam at a pediatric institution.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Recent studies suggest rapid administration of high-dose, undiluted levetiracetam is safe in adults; however, no information exists in pediatric patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of undiluted levetiracetam at a pediatric institution. DESIGN: Retrospective, single-center, cohort study. SETTING: Pediatric Academic Medical Center. PATIENTS: All patients who received high-dose >60 mg/kg (-10%) up to 4500 mg undiluted or diluted intravenous levetiracetam were included. INTERVENTION: Rapid intravenous administration of undiluted versus diluted levetiracetam. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 776 levetiracetam doses were included, 358 doses administered and 418 doses wasted. The doses administered (61 undiluted and 297 diluted) accounted for a total of 252 patients (39 received undiluted, and 213 received diluted levetiracetam) (median [minimum-maximum range] age, 2 years [1 day to 32.7 years]; mean (standard deviation [SD]) weight, 20.1 kg [22.1 kg]). The incidence of hemodynamic disturbances and infusion-related reactions was not statistically significant between undiluted (24.6%) and diluted (26.3%) groups (p = 0.87). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) time difference between first-line antiseizure medication and levetiracetam administration in patients with status epilepticus was 18 min (10.5-30.5) in the undiluted group versus 36.5 min (21.8-67.3) in the diluted group (p < 0.01). Additionally, there was a significant amount of drug waste from dispensed but not administered doses of the diluted bag compared to undiluted vials (57.6% diluted vs. 18.7% undiluted, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Undiluted levetiracetam was not associated with an increased incidence of adverse effects compared to diluted levetiracetam in high-doses, up to 4500 mg given over 5 min in pediatric patients.

Severe cutaneous adverse reaction to drug excipient following brand-to-generic switch of levetiracetam.

PURPOSE: Levetiracetam is an antiepileptic drug known for its high tolerability, and severe adverse drug reactions are rare. We report the case of a severe cutaneous adverse drug reaction in a patient who was switched from brand-name to generic levetiracetam. SUMMARY: A 29-year-old woman undergoing contrast-enhanced computed tomography developed lesions over her trunk starting 6 hours after imaging. Although initially diagnosed as an allergy to the radiocontrast agent, the condition progressively worsened into toxic epidermal necrolysis-drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms overlap syndrome, despite adequate hydration and treatment. Investigation of the patient's medications revealed that she had been switched from brand-name to generic levetiracetam a week before the onset of symptoms. Levetiracetam was immediately discontinued, with the patient recovering after 2 weeks of intensive care. Adverse drug reaction analysis identified excipients in generic levetiracetam as the likely cause of the severe reaction. CONCLUSION: This is the first reported case of severe cutaneous drug allergy after a brand-to-generic switch for levetiracetam. Brand-to-generic switches of medications can potentially cause severe allergic reactions due to differences in excipients.

Effect of Levetiracetam on Cognition: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Double-Blind Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Studies have suggested that levetiracetam may help improve cognitive function in patients with epilepsy. Recently, its efficacy in improving cognitive function was reported in patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment, schizophrenia, and Alzheimer's disease. However, the specific cognitive domains affected and the degree of evidence supporting these effects remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore the effects of levetiracetam on different cognitive domains. METHODS: This meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. We defined our inclusion criteria for the systematic review as: (1) randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) involving human subjects, (2) double-blinded RCTs, and (3) RCTs evaluating the quantitative differences in cognitive function between levetiracetam and placebo. We excluded: (1) non-RCT studies, (2) open-label studies, and (3) RCTs lacking cognitive assessments for either intervention. Two authors independently searched electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov, from inception until 2 July 2023. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analytic techniques were applied to examine the impact of levetiracetam on cognitive domain tests, with Hedges' g facilitating the comparison with placebo. The domains analyzed comprised multi-domain, executive function, processing speed, working memory, verbal memory/learning (verbal ML), visuospatial memory/learning (visuospatial ML), and language. We used odds ratios to compare the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events between the groups, including somnolence, fatigue, dizziness, headache, irritability, and cognitive adverse events. RESULTS: A random-effects model was utilized to perform a meta-analysis of 16 RCTs including 545 participants. Compared with a placebo, levetiracetam was associated with improved executive function [Hedges'g = - 0.390, 95% confidence interval (CI) = - 0.609 to - 0.172, p < 0.001, I2 = 24.0%]. Subgroup analysis showed that levetiracetam outperformed placebo in patients without epilepsy (Hedges' g = - 0.419, 95% CI = - 0.647 to - 0.191, p < 0.001, I2 = 26.2%). Meanwhile, low-dose levetiracetam showed a moderate favorable effect over placebo (Hedges' g = -0.544, 95% CI = - 1.085 to - 0.003, p = 0.049, I2 = 65.3%). In patients without epilepsy, low-dose levetiracetam was associated with improved executive function (Hedges'g = - 0.544, 95% CI = - 1.085 to - 0.003, p = 0.049, I2 = 65.3%). Concurrently, levetiracetam was associated with more frequent somnolence than a placebo (odds ratio = 4.654, 95% CI = 1.533 to 14.124, p = 0.007, I2 = 32.9%). Potential publication bias was observed in the executive function domain. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study suggests that levetiracetam might improve executive function in specific populations. However, the diversity in study populations and potential publication bias warrant caution.

Levetiracetam Interaction with Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Pharmacovigilance Study.

BACKGROUND: Levetiracetam is widely used in post-stroke epilepsy. However, it is suspected to possess P-glycoprotein (P-gp) induction properties, and therefore, a potentially significant interaction with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). We aimed to search for ischemic stroke signals with levetiracetam and the DOACs. METHODS: In this retrospective pharmacovigilance study, we used the FAERS database to identify ischemic stroke events associated with DOACs and concomitant use of levetiracetam. We evaluated disproportionate reporting by the adjusted reporting odds ratio (adjROR) and the lower bound of the shrinkage 95% confidence interval. When shrinkage is positive, an increased risk of a specific adverse event occurrence is emphasized over the sum of the individual risks when these same drugs are used separately. RESULTS: We identified 1841 (1.5%), 3731 (5.3%), 338 (4.9%), and 1723 (1.3%) ischemic stroke reports with apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban, respectively. The adjROR of the interaction effect was 3.57 (95% CI 2.81-4.58) between DOACs and levetiracetam. The shrinkage analysis detected an interaction between each of the DOACs and levetiracetam. The logistic model and shrinkage analysis failed to detect an interaction when queried for hemorrhagic stroke. A significant signal in the classical enzyme inducer, carbamazepine, strengthened our results (adjROR; 8.47, 95% CI 5.37-13.36). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows a strong signal for the levetiracetam interaction with the DOACs. Our findings suggest implementation of a drug monitoring strategy.

Effect of U50488, a selective kappa opioid receptor agonist and levetiracetam against lithium-pilocarpine-induced status epilepticus, spontaneous convulsive seizures and related cognitive impairment.

PURPOSE: Kappa opioid receptor (KOR) agonists have anticonvulsant effect but their antiepileptogenic effect is unknown. U50488, a selective KOR agonist is used to determine its effect on status epilepticus (SE), spontaneous convulsive seizures (SS) and cognitive impairment in rat lithium-pilocarpine SE model. Effect of an antiepileptic drug levetiracetam is also studied. METHOD: Male Wistar rats with SE were divided into three groups namely, LiP, LiP + U50488 (10 mg/kg, i.p.) and LiP + levetiracetam (400 mg/kg, i.p.) group. SE was terminated after 90 min of its onset with diazepam (15 mg/kg, i.p.) and phenobarbitone (25 mg/kg, i.p.). Drug treatment was started after 15 min of onset of SE and repeated once after 4 h. Rats were video monitored 12 h daily (9 AM to 9 PM) to determine severity of SE using modified Racine scale and onset and frequency of SS from day 0 to day 21. Morris water maze (MWM) test was done at baseline i.e. day -1 (before lithium administration) and day 22, to assess cognitive impairment. RESULTS: As compared to LiP, U50488 decreased the severity of SE (1.98 ± 0.13 vs 2.95 ± 0.12; p-value < 0.0001) but not levetiracetam (2.62 ± 0.09; p-value = 0.3112). Survival increased with both U50488 (90%, n = 10) and levetiracetam (81.8%, n = 11) as compared to NS (56.2%, n = 16). No effect on onset and frequency of SS was found in U50488/levetiracetam group. U50488 improved seizures-induced cognitive impairment. Levetiracetam group showed thigmotactic (wall hugging) behaviour in MWM in 8 out of 9 rats. CONCLUSION: Acute treatment with U50488, a kappa opioid receptor agonist has a beneficial effect on SE, SE-related mortality and memory impairment. The dual protective effect of U50488 on seizures and related cognitive impairment is advantageous over currently used antiseizure drugs which are known to cause cognitive impairment.

Paradoxical effects of levetiracetam in people with epilepsy with rhythmic epileptiform discharges.

OBJECTIVE: To elucidate the incidence and risk factors for paradoxical effects (i.e., increased seizure frequency, increased seizure severity, or onset of new seizure types) of levetiracetam (LEV) in people with epilepsy (PWE) and identify the usefulness of electroencephalography (EEG) in predicting these effects. METHODS: We examined data for consecutive PWE treated with LEV. All PWE underwent EEG and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before LEV administration. We also evaluated the incidence of paradoxical LEV effects and conducted multivariate logistic regression analyses to identify the associated factors. RESULTS: In total, 210 (66.2%) of 317 PWEs treated in our department had a history of LEV use. The incidence of paradoxical LEV effects was 5.2% (n = 11) and was significantly associated with a high LEV dose (p = 0.029), high seizure frequency (p = 0.005), temporal lobe epilepsy (p = 0.004), focal awareness seizure (p = 0.004), focal impaired awareness seizure (p = 0.007), spike (p = 0.015), rhythmic epileptiform discharges (REDs; p = 0.003), and MRI-identified focal cortical dysplasia (FCD; p < 0.0001). Multivariate analyses revealed that REDs (odds ratio [OR] = 5.35, p = 0.048, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-28.21) were independently associated with paradoxical LEV effects. CONCLUSIONS: Paradoxical LEV effects occurred in PWE, particularly in those with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Furthermore, the occurrence of REDs in EEG was an independent factor associated with the paradoxical effects of LEV in PWE.