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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Psychiatric Symptoms of Patients With Epilepsy: Characteristics of Psychiatric Adverse Events by Novel Antiepileptic Medications].

Patients with epilepsy often show treatment-related psychiatric symptoms. Among the novel antiseizure medications (ASM), Perampanel (PER), Levetiracetam (LEV), and Topiramate (TPM) have been reported to have a relatively high frequency of psychiatric adverse events. However, these psychiatric symptoms are not identical; PER and LEV show adverse events of irritability and aggression, while TPM shows typical symptoms of depression and schizophrenia. It is important to understand the characteristics of these psychiatric adverse events to design appropriate treatment regimens for epileptic patients. (Received August 1, 2022; Accepted December 24, 2022; Published April 1, 2023).

Can Pyridoxine Successfully Reduce Behavioral Side Effects from Levetiracetam?: A Critically Appraised Topic.

BACKGROUND: Levetiracetam is a commonly used anti-seizure medication, with the development of neuropsychiatric symptoms being the most common side effect. Preliminary literature describes the improvement of these symptoms with pyridoxine, mostly within the pediatric population. However, randomized control trial data investigating this relationship is sparse. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to critically assess evidence regarding the role of pyridoxine in the treatment of neuropsychiatric symptoms from levetiracetam. METHODS: The objective was addressed through the development of a structured, critically appraised topic. This included a clinical scenario with a clinical question, literature search strategy, critical appraisal, results, evidence summary, commentary, and bottom-line conclusions. Participants included consultant and resident neurologists, medical librarians, clinical epidemiologists, and content experts in the field of epilepsy. RESULTS: A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial was selected for critical appraisal. This trial compared pyridoxine versus placebo for the treatment of neuropsychiatric symptoms from levetiracetam in a pediatric population and included 105 patients (46/105 received pyridoxine, 59/105 received placebo). It found that both groups had a significant reduction in behavioral symptoms at the 2-,4-and 6-week time points ( P <0.05). However, the authors noted that the pyridoxine group had almost double the relative reduction when compared with the placebo group at all time points: 1.9 at 2 weeks, 2.0 at 4 weeks, and 1.8 at 6 weeks ( P =0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that pyridoxine for the treatment of levetiracetam-induced behavioral side effects may result in modest improvement, although many limitations prevent conclusive results. There remains a need for a double-blinded, randomized control trial in both the adult and pediatric populations.

Antiepileptic drug-induced severe granulomatous interstitial nephritis.

Granulomatous interstitial nephritis (GIN) is a type of tubulointerstitial nephritis characterised by tubulointerstitial infiltration of mononuclear cells and eosinophils. It accounts for about 6% of all tubulointerstitial nephritis and is detected in ∼0.5%-0.9% of all renal biopsies. GIN has been linked to several antibiotics, non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and granulomatous disorders like tuberculosis and sarcoidosis but is rarely reported with anti-epileptic medications like phenytoin and levetiracetam. We present a case report of a man in his early 20's with previously normal renal function who developed GIN following levetiracetam and phenytoin consumption for 7 years. After withdrawal of the causative drug and starting steroid therapy, his kidney function gradually improved. In cases of GIN, medication history is important in the evaluation of aetiology.

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.

Clinical value of therapeutic drug monitoring for levetiracetam in pediatric patients with epilepsy.

PURPOSE: To identify pediatric patients who require therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of levetiracetam (LEV). METHODS: We retrospectively investigated 2413 routine therapeutic drug monitoring data on serum LEV concentration from 1398 pediatric patients (age, 0-15 years). Samples were grouped by age (infants, < 1 year; preschool children, 1-5 years; primary school children, 6-11 years; and adolescents, 12-15 years), and the LEV concentration-to-dose (CD) ratio was calculated. RESULTS: The mean CD ratio was highest in adolescents (analysis of variance, p < 0.001); 22.5 % and 15.7 % higher in adolescents than in preschool children and school children, respectively (Scheffé test, p < 0.001); and higher in infants than in preschool children. Preschool children had the lowest ratio and tended to show an increase in the ratio from age 2 to 5 years. Use of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication reduced the CD ratio by 6.1 % in infants, 12.2 % in preschool children, 5.9 % in primary school children, and 9.4 % in adolescents. The mean CD ratio was 2.7 %, 26.9 %, and 39.3 % higher in preschool children, primary school children, and adolescents with defined chronic kidney disease (CKD) than in the respective age group of patients without CKD. The therapeutic concentration range for a long-term LEV therapy was 11 to 32 µg/mL. CONCLUSIONS: LEV pharmacokinetics are significantly different between infant and preschool children, so TDM of LEV is clinically useful in these patients. In pediatric patients at higher risk for CKD, glomerular filtration rate and LEV levels should be carefully monitored.

A review of cognitive and behavioral outcomes of Brivaracetam.

Anti-seizure medications (ASMs) can cause cognitive or behavioral adverse drug reactions, which is an important consideration when selecting an appropriate ASM. Brivaracetam (BRV) is a newer synaptic vesicle protein 2A ligand, which is expected to result in fewer neuropsychiatric adverse effects due to its mechanism of action. To understand the impact of BRV on cognition and behavior compared with other ASMs, we conducted a review of the literature using the Cochrane Library, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Embase. After the screening process, a total of two animal studies, one randomized controlled trial, one pooled analysis of clinical trials, one controlled study, and nine observational studies were included. The animal studies showed that BRV did not worsen cognitive or behavioral performance in rodents. The human studies showed that BRV was associated with fewer cognitive adverse events compared with other second- or third-generation ASMs. In addition, BRV was less associated with behavioral disturbance than levetiracetam. In summary, this review revealed that BRV has a limited impact on cognition and behavior. For patients who are intolerant to levetiracetam and have levetiracetam-related behavioral side effects, switching to BRV could be beneficial. However, heterogeneity between studies resulted in low-quality of evidence, and further trials are needed to confirm the findings.