Therapeutic drug monitoring in pregnancy: Levetiracetam.

OBJECTIVE: Levetiracetam (LEV) is an antiseizure medication that is mainly excreted by the kidneys. Due to its low teratogenic risk, LEV is frequently prescribed for women with epilepsy (WWE). Physiological changes during gestation affect the pharmacokinetic characteristics of LEV. The goal of our study was to characterize the changes in LEV clearance during pregnancy and the postpartum period, to better plan an LEV dosing paradigm for pregnant women. METHODS: This retrospective observational study incorporated a cohort of women who were followed up at the epilepsy in pregnancy clinic at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center during the years 2020-2023. Individualized target concentrations of LEV and an empirical postpartum taper were used for seizure control and to reduce toxicity likelihood. Patient visits took place every 1-2 months and included a review of medication dosage, trough LEV blood levels, week of gestation and LEV dose at the time of level measurement, and seizure diaries. Total LEV concentration/dose was calculated based on LEV levels and dose as an estimation of LEV clearance. RESULTS: A total of 263 samples were collected from 38 pregnant patients. We observed a decrease in LEV concentration/dose (C/D) as the pregnancy progressed, followed by an abrupt postpartum increase. Compared to the 3rd trimester, the most significant C/D decrease was observed at the 1st trimester (slope = .85), with no significant change in the 2nd trimester (slope = .11). A significant increase in C/D occurred postpartum (slope = 5.23). LEV dose was gradually increased by 75% during pregnancy compared to preconception. Average serum levels (µg/mL) decreased during pregnancy. During the postpartum period, serum levels increased, whereas the LEV dose was decreased by 24%, compared to the 3rd trimester. SIGNIFICANCE: LEV serum level monitoring is essential for WWE prior to and during pregnancy as well as postpartum. Our data contribute to determining a rational treatment and dosing paradigm for LEV use during both pregnancy and the postpartum period.

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.

Correlation of drug dose estimated from national prescription registers with mean blood level of antiseizure medication in pregnancy.

PURPOSE: The purpose was to examine the correlation of antiseizure medication drug dose estimated from prescription fill records from prescription registers with blood levels during pregnancy. METHODS: We conducted a Nation-wide study of mothers who gave birth in Denmark between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2018 using data from Danish Prescription and Laboratory Registers. We identified mothers with blood level measurements of antiseizure medication. The main exposure was estimated antiseizure medication dosage estimated from pregnancy-filled prescriptions in the Danish Prescription Register. The main outcome was the correlation of estimated dose with mean blood level of antiseizure medication in pregnancy. For privacy reasons, the number of blood level measurement and prescription fills were rounded to nearest 10, but proportions reported as exact values. RESULTS: Among 298 560 pregnancies, we identified pregnancies with recorded prescription fill from the prescription register for valproate (N = 90), lamotrigine (N = 1360), levetiracetam (N = 340), topiramate (N = 100), and carbamazepine (N = 60). In these pregnancies, blood level measurements were available in 50 (53%) pregnancies for valproate, 850 (62%) pregnancies for lamotrigine, 320 (93%) pregnancies for levetiracetam, 50 (68%) pregnancies for carbamazepine, and 40 (35%) pregnancies for topiramate. Pearsons's correlation coefficients for the correlation of estimated antiseizure medication dose with mean blood levels were 0.67 (p < 0.0001) for valproate, 0.63 (p < 0.0001) for lamotrigine, 0.63 (p < 0.0001) for levetiracetam, 0.76 (<0.0001) for carbamazepine and 0.89 (<0.0001) for topiramate. CONCLUSIONS: Dose of antiseizure medication estimated from prescription fills was a good proxy for blood levels and thus for biological exposure in pregnancy, suggesting that administrative prescription fill records may be a valuable resource for estimating exposure to antiseizure medication in pregnancy.

Statewide Emergency Medical Services Protocols for Status Epilepticus Management.

Although seizures are common in prehospital settings, standardized emergency medical services (EMS) treatment algorithms do not exist nationally. We examined nationwide variability in status epilepticus treatment by analyzing 33 publicly available statewide EMS protocols. All adult protocols recommend intravenous benzodiazepines (midazolam, n = 33; lorazepam, n = 23; diazepam, n = 24), 30 recommend intramuscular benzodiazepines (midazolam, n = 30; lorazepam, n = 8; diazepam, n = 3), and 27 recommend intranasal benzodiazepines (midazolam, n = 27; lorazepam, n = 3); pediatric protocols also frequently recommend rectal diazepam (n = 14). Recommended dosages vary widely, and first- and second-line agents are designated in only 18 and 2 states, respectively. Given this degree of variability, standardized national EMS guidelines are needed. ANN NEUROL 2021;89:604-609.

Systematic evaluation of rationally chosen multitargeted drug combinations: a combination of low doses of levetiracetam, atorvastatin and ceftriaxone exerts antiepileptogenic effects in a mouse model of acquired epilepsy.

Epileptogenesis, the gradual process that leads to epilepsy after brain injury or genetic mutations, is a complex network phenomenon, involving a variety of morphological, biochemical and functional brain alterations. Although risk factors for developing epilepsy are known, there is currently no treatment available to prevent epilepsy. We recently proposed a multitargeted, network-based approach to prevent epileptogenesis by rationally combining clinically available drugs and provided first proof-of-concept that this strategy is effective. Here we evaluated eight novel rationally chosen combinations of 14 drugs with mechanisms that target different epileptogenic processes. The combinations consisted of 2-4 different drugs per combination and were administered systemically over 5 days during the latent epileptogenic period in the intrahippocampal kainate mouse model of acquired temporal lobe epilepsy, starting 6 h after kainate. Doses and dosing intervals were based on previous pharmacokinetic and tolerability studies in mice. The incidence and frequency of spontaneous electrographic and electroclinical seizures were recorded by continuous (24/7) video linked EEG monitoring done for seven days at 4 and 12 weeks post-kainate, i.e., long after termination of drug treatment. Compared to vehicle controls, the most effective drug combination consisted of low doses of levetiracetam, atorvastatin and ceftriaxone, which markedly reduced the incidence of electrographic seizures (by 60%; p<0.05) and electroclinical seizures (by 100%; p<0.05) recorded at 12 weeks after kainate. This effect was lost when higher doses of the three drugs were administered, indicating a synergistic drug-drug interaction at the low doses. The potential mechanisms underlying this interaction are discussed. We have discovered a promising novel multitargeted combination treatment for modifying the development of acquired epilepsy.

Efficacy of levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate for established status epilepticus by age group (ESETT): a double-blind, responsive-adaptive, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepine-refractory, or established, status epilepticus is thought to be of similar pathophysiology in children and adults, but differences in underlying aetiology and pharmacodynamics might differentially affect response to therapy. In the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT) we compared the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate in established status epilepticus, and here we describe our results after extending enrolment in children to compare outcomes in three age groups. METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, response-adaptive, randomised controlled trial, we recruited patients from 58 hospital emergency departments across the USA. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 2 years or older, had been treated for a generalised convulsive seizure of longer than 5 min duration with adequate doses of benzodiazepines, and continued to have persistent or recurrent convulsions in the emergency department for at least 5 min and no more than 30 min after the last dose of benzodiazepine. Patients were randomly assigned in a response-adaptive manner, using Bayesian methods and stratified by age group (<18 years, 18-65 years, and >65 years), to levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, or valproate. All patients, investigators, study staff, and pharmacists were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was absence of clinically apparent seizures with improved consciousness and without additional antiseizure medication at 1 h from start of drug infusion. The primary safety outcome was life-threatening hypotension or cardiac arrhythmia. The efficacy and safety outcomes were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01960075. FINDINGS: Between Nov 3, 2015, and Dec 29, 2018, we enrolled 478 patients and 462 unique patients were included: 225 children (aged <18 years), 186 adults (18-65 years), and 51 older adults (>65 years). 175 (38%) patients were randomly assigned to levetiracetam, 142 (31%) to fosphenyltoin, and 145 (31%) were to valproate. Baseline characteristics were balanced across treatments within age groups. The primary efficacy outcome was met in those treated with levetiracetam for 52% (95% credible interval 41-62) of children, 44% (33-55) of adults, and 37% (19-59) of older adults; with fosphenytoin in 49% (38-61) of children, 46% (34-59) of adults, and 35% (17-59) of older adults; and with valproate in 52% (41-63) of children, 46% (34-58) of adults, and 47% (25-70) of older adults. No differences were detected in efficacy or primary safety outcome by drug within each age group. With the exception of endotracheal intubation in children, secondary safety outcomes did not significantly differ by drug within each age group. INTERPRETATION: Children, adults, and older adults with established status epilepticus respond similarly to levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate, with treatment success in approximately half of patients. Any of the three drugs can be considered as a potential first-choice, second-line drug for benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus. FUNDING: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health.

Taste Masking Study Based on an Electronic Tongue: the Formulation Design of 3D Printed Levetiracetam Instant-Dissolving Tablets.

PURPOSE: Proper taste-masking formulation design is a critical issue for instant-dissolving tablets (IDTs). The purpose of this study is to use the electronic tongue to design the additives of the 3D printed IDTs to improve palatability. METHODS: A binder jet 3D printer was used to prepare IDTs of levetiracetam. A texture analyzer and dissolution apparatus were used to predict the oral dispersion time and in vitro drug release of IDTs, respectively. The palatability of different formulations was investigated using the ASTREE electronic tongue in combination with the design of experiment and a model for masking bitter taste. Human gustatory sensation tests were conducted to further evaluate the credibility of the results. RESULTS: The 3D printed tablets exhibited rapid dispersion (<30 s) and drug release (2.5 min > 90%). The electronic tongue had an excellent ability of taste discrimination, and levetiracetam had a good linear sensing performance based on a partial least square regression analysis. The principal component analysis was used to analyze the signal intensities of different formulations and showed that 2% sucralose and 0.5% spearmint flavoring masked the bitterness well and resembled the taste of corresponding placebo. The results of human gustatory sensation test were consistent with the trend of the electronic tongue evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Owing to its objectivity and reproducibility, this technique is suitable for the design and evaluation of palatability in 3D printed IDT development.

Polycystic ovarian syndrome in Nigerian women with epilepsy on carbamazepine/levetiracetam monotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: The study is aimed at comparing effects of older drugs like carbamazepine (CBZ) and newer agent like levetiracetam (LEV) on polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) in women with epilepsy (WWE). METHODS: An interviewer-based questionnaire was used to obtain relevant clinical information from 50 WWE on CBZ and LEV monotherapy, respectively, and 50 age-matched controls. The diagnosis of epilepsy was clinical with electroencephalographic features taken into consideration and the seizures classified using the 2017 International League Against Epilepsy classification. The diagnosis of PCOS was based on the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology/American Society for Reproductive Medicine. RESULTS: The frequency of PCOS and its subcomponent were higher among WWE compare to controls. PCOS was present in 22 (44%) of LEV group compare to 8 (16%) CBZ group. The frequency of its subcomponent was higher among those on LEV except for comparable effect with regard to oligomenorrhea. The levels of the sex steroid hormone were comparable in both groups of WWE except luteal phase luteinizing hormone, which was lower among the LEV group (P .001). The follicular phase estradiol level was lower (P .021), and follicle-stimulating hormone level was about 2-fold higher (P .03) among WWE compare to controls. The mean value testosterone was significantly lower among controls compared to WWE. CONCLUSIONS: The increased frequency of PCOS and its subcomponent and the unsatisfactory effect of LEV compared to CBZ on reproductive endocrine function underscore the need for routine reproductive endocrine evaluation to improve overall quality of life.

Treatment of epilepsy for people with Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: Any type of seizure can be observed in Alzheimer's disease. Antiepileptic drugs seem to prevent the recurrence of epileptic seizures in most people with Alzheimer's disease. There are pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for epilepsy in people with Alzheimer's disease, however there are no current systematic reviews to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of these treatments. This review aims to investigate these different modalities. This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions for the treatment of epilepsy in people with Alzheimer's disease (including sporadic Alzheimer's disease and dominantly inherited Alzheimer's disease). SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, on 3 August 2020 we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 31 July 2020). CRS Web includes randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials from PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Cochrane Epilepsy. In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials, we searched ongoing trials registers, reference lists and relevant conference proceedings; we also contacted trial authors and pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials investigating treatment for epilepsy in people with Alzheimer's disease, with the primary outcomes of proportion of participants with seizure freedom and proportion of participants experiencing adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified records, selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, cross-checked the data for accuracy and assessed the methodological quality. We performed no meta-analyses due to there being limited available data. MAIN RESULTS: We included one randomized controlled trial (RCT) on pharmacological interventions; the trial included 95 participants. No studies were found for non-pharmacological interventions. Concerning the proportion of participants with seizure freedom, no significant differences were found for the comparisons of levetiracetam versus lamotrigine (RR) 1.20, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.71; 67 participants; very low-certainty evidence), levetiracetam versus phenobarbital (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.19; 66 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or lamotrigine versus phenobarbital (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.02; 57 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It seemed that levetiracetam could improve cognition and lamotrigine could relieve depression, while phenobarbital and lamotrigine could worsen cognition, and levetiracetam and phenobarbital could worsen mood. The risk of bias relating to allocation, blinding and selective reporting was unclear. We judged the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to be very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review does not provide sufficient evidence to support levetiracetam, phenobarbital or lamotrigine for the treatment of epilepsy in people with Alzheimer's disease. Regarding efficacy and tolerability, no significant differences were found between levetiracetam, phenobarbital and lamotrigine. Large RCTs with a double-blind, parallel-group design are required to determine the efficacy and tolerability of treatment for epilepsy in people with Alzheimer's disease.

Brain metastasis in a patient with multiple malignancies.

ABSTRACT: Brain metastases originate from other primary cancers within the body, most commonly lung, breast, and melanoma. Because patients with brain metastasis, stroke, or intracranial hemorrhage may present with similar acute neurologic symptoms, clinicians must have a high suspicion for brain metastasis and perform an immediate workup to rule out life-threatening conditions. This case report focuses on the clinical symptoms, diagnostics, and treatment options for brain metastasis in a patient with multiple malignancies.

Levetiracetam versus phenytoin for second-line treatment of convulsive status epilepticus in children (ConSEPT): an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Phenytoin is the current standard of care for second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus after failure of first-line benzodiazepines, but is only effective in 60% of cases and is associated with considerable adverse effects. A newer anticonvulsant, levetiracetam, can be given more quickly, is potentially more efficacious, and has a more tolerable adverse effect profile. We aimed to determine whether phenytoin or levetiracetam is the superior second-line treatment for paediatric convulsive status epilepticus. METHODS: ConSEPT was an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial conducted in 13 emergency departments in Australia and New Zealand. Children aged between 3 months and 16 years, with convulsive status epilepticus that failed first-line benzodiazepine treatment, were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated permuted block (block sizes 2 and 4) randomisation sequence, stratified by site and age (≤5 years, >5 years), to receive 20 mg/kg phenytoin (intravenous or intraosseous infusion over 20 min) or 40 mg/kg levetiracetam (intravenous or intraosseous infusion over 5 min). The primary outcome was clinical cessation of seizure activity 5 min after the completion of infusion of the study drug. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12615000129583. FINDINGS: Between March 19, 2015, and Nov 29, 2017, 639 children presented to participating emergency departments with convulsive status epilepticus; 127 were missed, and 278 did not meet eligibility criteria. The parents of one child declined to give consent, leaving 233 children (114 assigned to phenytoin and 119 assigned to levetiracetam) in the intention-to-treat population. Clinical cessation of seizure activity 5 min after completion of infusion of study drug occurred in 68 (60%) patients in the phenytoin group and 60 (50%) patients in the levetiracetam group (risk difference -9·2% [95% CI -21·9 to 3·5]; p=0·16). One participant in the phenytoin group died at 27 days because of haemorrhagic encephalitis; this death was not thought to be due to the study drug. There were no other serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Levetiracetam is not superior to phenytoin for second-line management of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus. FUNDING: Health Research Council of New Zealand, A+ Trust, Emergency Medicine Foundation, Townsville Hospital Private Practice Fund, Eric Ormond Baker Charitable Fund, and Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation.

Levetiracetam versus phenytoin for second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus (EcLiPSE): a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Phenytoin is the recommended second-line intravenous anticonvulsant for treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus in the UK; however, some evidence suggests that levetiracetam could be an effective and safer alternative. This trial compared the efficacy and safety of phenytoin and levetiracetam for second-line management of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus. METHODS: This open-label, randomised clinical trial was undertaken at 30 UK emergency departments at secondary and tertiary care centres. Participants aged 6 months to under 18 years, with convulsive status epilepticus requiring second-line treatment, were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated randomisation schedule to receive levetiracetam (40 mg/kg over 5 min) or phenytoin (20 mg/kg over at least 20 min), stratified by centre. The primary outcome was time from randomisation to cessation of convulsive status epilepticus, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (excluding those who did not require second-line treatment after randomisation and those who did not provide consent). This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN22567894. FINDINGS: Between July 17, 2015, and April 7, 2018, 1432 patients were assessed for eligibility. After exclusion of ineligible patients, 404 patients were randomly assigned. After exclusion of those who did not require second-line treatment and those who did not consent, 286 randomised participants were treated and had available data: 152 allocated to levetiracetam, and 134 to phenytoin. Convulsive status epilepticus was terminated in 106 (70%) children in the levetiracetam group and in 86 (64%) in the phenytoin group. Median time from randomisation to cessation of convulsive status epilepticus was 35 min (IQR 20 to not assessable) in the levetiracetam group and 45 min (24 to not assessable) in the phenytoin group (hazard ratio 1·20, 95% CI 0·91-1·60; p=0·20). One participant who received levetiracetam followed by phenytoin died as a result of catastrophic cerebral oedema unrelated to either treatment. One participant who received phenytoin had serious adverse reactions related to study treatment (hypotension considered to be immediately life-threatening [a serious adverse reaction] and increased focal seizures and decreased consciousness considered to be medically significant [a suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction]). INTERPRETATION: Although levetiracetam was not significantly superior to phenytoin, the results, together with previously reported safety profiles and comparative ease of administration of levetiracetam, suggest it could be an appropriate alternative to phenytoin as the first-choice, second-line anticonvulsant in the treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The association of patient weight and dose of fosphenytoin, levetiracetam, and valproic acid with treatment success in status epilepticus.

The Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial was a blinded, comparative-effectiveness study of fosphenytoin, levetiracetam, and valproic acid in benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus. The primary outcome was clinical seizure cessation and increased responsiveness without additional anticonvulsant medications. Weight-based dosing was capped at 75 kg. Hence, patients weighing >75 kg received a lower mg/kg dose. Logistic regression models were developed in 235 adults to determine the association of weight (≤ or >75 kg, ≤ or >90 kg), sex, treatment, and weight-normalized dose with the primary outcome and solely seizure cessation. The primary outcome was achieved in 45.1% and 42.5% of those ≤75 kg and >75 kg, respectively. Using univariate analyses, the likelihood of success for those >75 kg (odds ratio [OR] = 0.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.54-1.51) or >90 kg (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.42-1.66) was not statistically different compared with those ≤75 kg or ≤90 kg, respectively. Similarly, other predictors were not significantly associated with primary outcome or clinical seizure cessation. Our findings suggest that doses, capped at 75 kg, likely resulted in concentrations greater than those needed for outcome. Studies that include drug concentrations and heavier individuals are needed to confirm these findings.

Efficacy and safety profile of intravenous levetiracetam versus phenytoin in convulsive status epilepticus and acute repetitive seizures in children.

PURPOSE: Although phenytoin is one of the most commonly used antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), it has potential serious side effects and drug interactions. Levetiracetam is a relatively newer AED with favorable pharmacokinetics and could be an effective and safer option for the treatment of convulsive status epilepticus (CSE). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety profile of intravenous levetiracetam and phenytoin as second-line treatment agents in children with CSE and acute repetitive seizures (ARS). METHOD: Two hundred seventy-seven patients aged between 1 month and 18 years who received intravenous levetiracetam or phenytoin as a second-line AED with the diagnosis of CSE or ARS were retrospectively evaluated. Drug efficacy was defined as control of seizures without the need for any additional medication after completion of the infusion and no recurrence in the following 12 h. The primary outcome was drug efficacy. The secondary outcomes included application of an additional second-line AED, induction of anesthesia, and admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and drug-related adverse reactions. RESULTS: No differences were found between the two treatment groups with regard to patient characteristics and seizure type. The efficacy of levetiracetam was higher than that of phenytoin (77.6% vs 57.7%, P = 0.011) in children with CSE. There was no significant difference between the efficacy rates of levetiracetam and phenytoin for ARS (55.8% vs 58.8%, P = 0.791). Overall, drug efficacy was 70.9% for levetiracetam and 58.1% for phenytoin (P = 0.048). For CSE, the need for additional second-line treatment, anesthesia induction, and ICU admission was higher in the phenytoin group (P = 0.001, P = 0.038, P = 0.02, respectively). Drug-related adverse reactions were more frequent in the phenytoin group than the levetiracetam group (23.3% vs 1.4%; P < 0.001). The most common adverse reaction in the phenytoin group was hypotension. Phenytoin-related anaphylaxis was detected in one patient. No serious adverse effects related to levetiracetam were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous levetiracetam seems as effective as intravenous phenytoin in emergency treatment of children with ARS and more effective for CSE in stopping the seizure with less risk of recurrence. Levetiracetam has fewer cardiovascular side effects and has a safer profile than phenytoin. Intravenous levetiracetam is a favorable option as a first second-line AED for pediatric seizures.

Levetiracetam vs. phenytoin as 2nd-line treatment for status epilepticus: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam (LEV) or phenytoin (PHT) as second-line treatment for status epilepticus (SE). METHODS: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Scopus, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar were assessed for prospective randomized trials comparing LEV with PHT as second-line treatment of SE published from inception until December 18th, 2019. The primary outcome was seizure cessation. Data were analyzed using a random-effects model. Quality analysis was performed using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020136417). RESULTS: Nine studies with a total of 1732 patients were included. Overall, seizure cessation occurred in 657 of 887 (74%) of patients in the LEV group and 600 of 845 (71%) in the PHT group. Treatment success did not differ significantly between groups, and the relative risk (RR) was 1.05 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98-1.12; I2 = 53%). Six of the studies were at low risk of bias, one study had some risk, and two studies had high risk. CONCLUSIONS: The use of LEV or PHT as second-line agents after benzodiazepine (BZD) for the treatment of SE was not associated with a difference in seizure cessation. Because there are minimal differences in efficacy at this time, clinicians should consider alternative factors when deciding on an antiepileptic drug (AED).

Levetiracetam as preventive treatment in adults with migraine: an up-to-date systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate current evidence on the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam as migraine prophylaxis in adult patients suffering from migraine attacks. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and International Web of Science were searched (last search in August 2018) for studies investigating levetiracetam for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Both randomized and non-randomized trials were eligible. Efficacy was the primary outcome, but tolerability was also investigated. The study is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42018088900. RESULTS: Nine studies, enrolling 215 patients, were included. Levetiracetam decreased the frequency of attacks with headache in all studies, with a pooled mean difference of -3.02 (95% CI: -4.59 to -1.45; I2 = 0%), -4.65(-7 to -2.3; I2 = 0%), and -5.71 (-8.60 to -2.82; I2 = 0%) at 1, 3, and 6 months compared with baseline. Three randomized controlled trials were included, and levetiracetam was superior to placebo in two but was inferior to sodium valproate in reducing headache frequency. Similar results were found in the other indices of efficacy, and levetiracetam was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Levetiracetam may be a relatively safe and efficacious treatment for the prophylaxis of migraine based on limited evidence, most from uncontrolled studies. Further evidence from randomized controlled trials is necessary.

Safety and Tolerability of Rapid Administration Undiluted Levetiracetam.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Levetiracetam (LEV) is an antiepileptic drug used widely in patients with a favorable safety profile. Studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of intravenous (IV) LEV included volumes of at least 100 mL. Minimally diluted doses administered over 5-6 min were found to be both safe and effective. Given the complexities of admixing, this practice can be impractical and result in delays in antiepileptic therapy. This study aimed to retrospectively review the safety and tolerability of rapid administration of undiluted LEV doses ≤ 1000 mg. METHODS: This was a retrospective study evaluating adverse drug reactions associated with undiluted LEV from January 1, 2018-June 1, 2018. Patients were included if they received at least one dose of undiluted LEV and were ≥ 18 years old. Safety endpoints were reviewed and collected from the time administration until hospital discharge. Endpoints included injection site pain and discomfort, injection site erythema, extravasation, IV line replacement, and any documented adverse effect leading to IV LEV discontinuation. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: A total of 199 patients were included in the study totaling 1626 doses of LEV. Most patients were administered LEV 1000 mg (60.8%), through a peripheral line (64.3%), and were prescribed LEV for seizure prophylaxis (58.3%). Patients received a mean of 8.1 ± 8 doses for a mean duration of therapy of 5 ± 4.5 days. About 98.5% of patients did not experience an adverse effect, whereas 1.5% of patients experienced agitation, delirium, confusion, and/or lethargy, which is well known to LEV therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid administration of undiluted LEV doses ≤ 1000 mg were well tolerated with no concentration-related side effects. Further prospective research is needed to confirm this observation as well as the safety of higher doses.

Seizure Prophylaxis in Unruptured Aneurysm Repair: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic antiepileptic drugs (pAEDs) are often prescribed for seizure prophylaxis in patients undergoing surgical treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs). We aimed to evaluate the benefit of pAEDs in patients undergoing surgical repair of UIAs. METHODS: We randomly assigned eligible patients undergoing surgical repair of UIAs to receive levetiracetam for seven days post-operatively or standard care alone. The primary outcome was the evaluation of seizures in the perioperative period (within 4 weeks). We also evaluated seizure occurrence throughout follow-up and assessed functional outcomes using the modified Rankin scale score (mRS). RESULTS: 35 patients were randomized to the "no-levetiracetam" group and 41 patients were randomized to receive levetiracetam. The two study groups had similar overall baseline characteristics and the surgical complication rate was similar for both groups (p = 0.8). One patient in the "no-levetiracetam" group had a seizure in the perioperative period versus 2 patients in the group randomized to receive levetiracetam (2.9% vs 4.9%, respectively, p = 1.00). No patients in the "no-levetiracetam" group had any additional late seizures (mean follow-up of 20.4 months), but three patients in the levetiracetam group had late seizures during follow-up (mean follow-up of 19.1 months) (0% vs 7.3%, p = 0.2). mRS score of 0-2 at 90 days and at the latest follow-up were similar between the two groups (p = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative seizure prophylaxis with levetiracetam does not reduce the rate of seizures as compared to controls in patients undergoing surgical repair of UIAs.

Why Physicians Prescribe Prophylactic Seizure Medications after Intracerebral Hemorrhage: An Adaptive Conjoint Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Seizures are a morbid complication of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and increase the risk for herniation, status epilepticus, and worse patient outcomes. Prophylactic levetiracetam is administered to approximately 40% of patients with ICH. It is unclear which patients are consciously selected for treatment by physicians. We sought to determine how patients are selected for treatment with prophylactic levetiracetam after ICH. METHODS: We administered an adaptive conjoint analysis using decision making software to an NIH Stroke Trials Network Working Group. The adaptive conjoint analysis determines the most influential attributes for making a decision in an iterative, algorithm-driven process. We asked respondents which would most influence a decision to administer prophylactic levetiracetam. The attributes and their levels were taken from published phenotypes associated with prophylactic seizure medications and the likelihood of seizures after ICH: hematoma location (lobar or basal ganglia), hematoma volume (<=10 mL or >10 mL), level of consciousness (Glasgow Coma Scale 5-12 or Glasgow Coma Scale 13-15), age (<65 or ≥65 years), and race (White or Caucasian or Black/African American). The algorithm terminated when the attributes were ranked from most to least influential. RESULTS: The study sample included 27 respondents who completed the adaptive conjoint analysis out of 42 who responded to the survey with a mean age of 43.4 ± 9.4 years. The attribute with the greatest weight was hematoma location (30%), followed by reduced level of consciousness (24%), hematoma volume (19%), race (14%), and age (13%). Ranks of attributes were different (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The decision to administer prophylactic levetiracetam to patients with ICH is driven by lobar hematoma location and depressed level of consciousness. Future research on prophylactic seizure medication could focus on patients most likely to receive it.

Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy in the elderly: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the comparative efficacy and safety of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in the elderly with new-onset epilepsy. METHODS: We searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of monotherapy AEDs to treat epilepsy in elderly. The following outcomes were analyzed: seizure freedom and withdrawal from the study for any cause at 6 and 12 months; withdrawal from the study for any adverse event (AE) at 12 months; and occurrence of any AE at 12 months. Effect sizes were estimated by network meta-analyses within a frequentist framework. The hierarchy of competing interventions was established using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) and mean ranks. RESULTS: Five RCTs (1425 patients) were included. Included AEDs were carbamazepine immediate- and controlled-release (CBZ-IR, CBZ-CR), gabapentin (GBP), lacosamide (LCM), lamotrigine (LTG), levetiracetam (LEV), phenytoin (PHT), and valproic acid (VPA). At the pairwise and network meta-analyses, there were no differences in any of the comparison according to 6- and 12-month seizure freedom. The treatment with CBZ-IR and CBZ-CR was associated with a higher risk of withdrawal than LTG, LEV, or VPA, and CBZ-IR had the overall highest probability of discontinuation across all AEDs. According to SUCRA, the following had the greatest likelihood ranking best for seizure freedom at 6 and 12 months: LCM, LTG, and LEV. CBZ-CR and CBZ-IR had the highest probabilities of being worst for the 12-month retention. CBZ-IR, CBZ-CR, and GBP had the highest probabilities of withdrawal from the study for AEs, , and VPA had the highest probability of being the best-tolerated option. SIGNIFICANCE: Although no significant difference in efficacy was found across treatments, LCM, LTG, and LEV had the highest probability of ranking best for achieving seizure freedom. CBZ-IR and CBZ-CR showed a poor tolerability profile, leading to higher withdrawal rates compared to LEV and VPA.