Phenytoin versus other antiepileptic drugs as treatments for status epilepticus in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aim
Status epilepticus (SE) is a life-threatening neurological emergency. There is insufficient evidence regarding which antiepileptic therapy is most effective in patients with benzodiazepine-refractory convulsive SE. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate intravenous phenytoin (PHT) and other intravenous antiepileptic medications for SE.Methods
We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in humans up to August 2019. We compared outcomes between intravenous PHT and other intravenous medications. The important primary composite outcomes were the successful clinical cessation of seizures, mortality, and neurological outcomes at discharge. The reliability of the level of evidence for each outcome was compared using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.Results
A total of 1,103 studies were identified from the databases, and 10 RCTs were included in the analysis. The ratio of successful clinical seizure cessation was significantly lower (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-0.97) for patients treated with intravenous PHT than with other medications. When we compared mortality and neurological outcomes at discharge, we observed no significant differences between patients treated with PHT and those treated with other medications. The RRs were 1.07 (95% CI, 0.55-2.08) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.72-1.15) for mortality and neurological outcomes at discharge, respectively.Conclusions
Our findings showed that intravenous PHT was significantly inferior to other medications in terms of the cessation of seizures. No significant differences were observed in mortality or neurological outcomes between PHT and other medications.
SUBMITTER: Hoshiyama E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8739045 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate clinical outcomes and treatment effectiveness of status epilepticus finally resolved by nonbenzodiazepine antiepileptic drugs (AEDs).MethodsAll consecutive SE episodes observed from September 1, 2013, to September 1, 2018, and resolved by AEDs were considered. Diagnosis and classification of SE followed the 2015 ILAE proposal. Nonconvulsive status (NCSE) diagnosis was confirmed according to the Salzburg EEG criteria. The modified Rankin Scale and deaths at 30 days from onset were used to evaluate outcomes.ResultsA total of 277 status episodes (mean age 71 years; 61% female) were treated and resolved by antiepileptic drugs after 382 treatment trials. 68% of the SE resolved after AED use as first/second treatment line, while subsequent trials with AEDs gave an additional 32% resolution. A return to baseline conditions was observed in 48% of the patients, while overall mortality was 19% without significant changes across the study years. Mortality was higher in NCSE than in convulsive SE (22.5% vs 12.9%; P < .05), while mortality did not differ in SE episodes resolved by a first/second AED trial (17.2%) versus SE resolved by successive treatment trials (18.9%). The resolution rate of intravenous AEDs was 82% for valproate, 77% for lacosamide, 71% for phenytoin, and 62% for levetiracetam. No significant differences were found in head-to-head comparison, but for the valproate-levetiracetam one that was related to NCSE episodes in which valproate resulted to be effective in 86% of the trials while levetiracetam in 62% (P < .002).SignificanceA high short-term mortality, stable over time, was observed in SE despite resolution of seizures, especially in SE with nonconvulsive semiology. Comparative AED efficacy showed no significant differences except for higher resolution rate for valproate versus levetiracetam in NCSE.
| S-EPMC7278543 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPhenytoin 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.MethodsThis 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.FindingsBetween 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]).InterpretationAlthough 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.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
| S-EPMC6551349 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStatus epilepticus (SE) is a neurologic emergency with potential for substantial mortality and morbidity. Parenteral benzodiazepine is the established first-line treatment but fails to control SE in about one-third of patients. Levetiracetam may be used for SE that is refractory to benzodiazepine therapy.ObjectiveTo examine, by means of a systematic review, the role of IV levetiracetam for the treatment of SE in adults.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases were searched, from inception to August 18, 2020.Study selection and data extractionIncluded in this review were prospective randomized controlled trials comparing levetiracetam with another antiepileptic drug, given with or after a benzodiazepine, in adult patients with SE. The primary outcome was cessation of SE. Quality of evidence was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Characteristics of the included studies were reported using descriptive statistics.Data synthesisFive studies compared IV levetiracetam with valproic acid, phenytoin (or its prodrug fosphenytoin), or both. All 5 studies found no statistically significant differences in efficacy or safety end points. There were numerically more cases of hypotension and respiratory failure with phenytoin, and more cases of psychiatric adverse effects (e.g., post-ictal psychosis) with levetiracetam.ConclusionsAvailable evidence suggests that levetiracetam is as effective as valproic acid or phenytoin for the cessation of SE in adults. Other factors should therefore dictate the choice of antiepileptic drug for patients with SE, such as adverse effect profile, logistics of administration, drug cost, inclusion on hospital formularies, and drug availability.
| S-EPMC8677000 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStatus epilepticus (SE) is a medical emergency with high mortality rates. Of all SE's, 7% are caused by a brain tumor. Clinical guidelines on the management of SE do not make a distinction between tumor-related SE and SE due to other causes. However, pathophysiological research points towards specific mechanisms of epilepsy in brain tumors. We investigated whether clinical features support a distinct profile of tumor-related SE by looking at measures of severity and response to treatment.MethodsSystematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of studies on adult SE that report separate data for tumor-related SE and non-tumor-related SE on the following outcomes: short-term mortality, long-term morbidity, duration of SE, and efficacy of anticonvulsant intervention.ResultsFourteen studies on outcome of SE were included. Tumor-related SE was associated with higher mortality than non-tumor-related SE (17.2% versus 11.2%, RR 1.53, 95%-CI 1.24-1.90). After exclusion of patients with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (a group with a known poor prognosis) from the non-tumor-group, the difference in mortality increased (17.2% versus 6.6%; RR 2.78, 95%-CI 2.21 - 3.47). Regarding long-term morbidity and duration of SE there were insufficient data. We did not find studies that systematically compared effects of therapy for SE between tumor- and non-tumor-related SE.ConclusionsBased on - mostly retrospective - available studies, short-term mortality seems higher in tumor-related SE than in SE due to other causes. Further studies on the outcome and efficacy of different therapeutic regimens in tumor-related SE are needed, to clarify whether tumor-related SE should be regarded as a distinct clinical entity.
| S-EPMC4108966 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveDue to the challenges inherent in performing clinical trials in children, a systematic review of published clinical trials was performed to determine whether the efficacy of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in adults can be used to predict the efficacy of AEDs in the pediatric population.MethodsMedline/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library searches (1970-January 2010) were conducted for clinical trials of partial-onset seizures (POS) and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS) in adults and in children <2 and 2-18 years. Independent epidemiologists used standardized search and study evaluation criteria to select eligible trials. Forest plots were used to investigate the relative strength of placebo-subtracted effect measures.ResultsAmong 30 adjunctive therapy POS trials in adults and children (2-18 years) that met evaluation criteria, effect measures were consistent between adults and children for gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, and topiramate. Placebo-subtracted median percent seizure reduction between baseline and treatment periods (ranging from 7.0% to 58.6% in adults and from 10.5% to 31.2% in children) was significant for 40/46 and 6/6 of the treatment groups studied. The ≥50% responder rate (ranging from 2.0% to 43.0% in adults and from 3.0% to 26.0% in children) was significant for 37/43 and 5/8 treatment groups. In children <2 years, an insufficient number of trials were eligible for analysis.ConclusionsThis systematic review supports the extrapolation of efficacy results in adults to predict a similar adjunctive treatment response in 2- to 18-year-old children with POS.
| S-EPMC4098824 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purposeThe aim of this study was to survey the expert opinions on treatments for convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) and nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) in adults.MethodsForty-two South Korean epileptologists participated in this survey. They completed an online questionnaire regarding various patient scenarios and evaluated the appropriateness of medications used to treat CSE and NCSE.ResultsInitial treatment with a benzodiazepine (BZD) followed by either a second BZD or an antiepileptic drug (AED) monotherapy was the preferred treatment strategy. More than two-thirds of the experts used a second BZD when the first one failed, and consensus was reached for 84.8% of the survey items. The preferred BZD was intravenous (IV) lorazepam for the initial treatment of status epilepticus. IV fosphenytoin and IV levetiracetam were chosen for AED monotherapy after the failure of BZD. The treatments for NCSE were similar to those for CSE. Continuous IV midazolam infusion was the treatment of choice for iatrogenic coma in refractory CSE, but other AEDs were preferred over iatrogenic coma in refractory NCSE.ConclusionsThe results of this survey are consistent with previous guidelines, and can be cautiously applied in clinical practice when treating patients with CSE or NCSE.
| S-EPMC7840316 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective Status epilepticus (SE) is a common neurological emergency that is defined as a prolonged seizure or a series of seizures which often leads to irreversible damage. Levetiracetam (LEV) and valproate (VPA) are second-line anti-seizure drugs that are frequently used in patients with established SE (ESE). This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of LEV and VPA for the treatment of ESE. Method MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and clinicaltrials.gov were searched by two authors, which identified six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared LEV and VPA for ESE. Results The six RCTs included 1213 patients (LEV group, n = 593; VPA group, n = 620). Integrated patient data information display LEV was not superior to VPA in terms of clinical seizure termination (63.55% vs. 64.08%, respectively; relative risk [RR] = 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.94–1.11, p = 0.55), with no significant differences between LEV and VPA in terms of good functional outcome at discharge (Glasgow Outcome Scale [GOS] = 4 or 5), intensive care unit (ICU) admission, adverse events, and mortality. There was no statistically significant difference between the two drugs in different age groups. Previous multicenter studies have demonstrated that VPA was slightly more effective than LEV, whereas single-center studies showed the opposite results. In addition, LEV and VPA had similar rates of clinical seizure termination, ICU admission, and adverse events between the age subgroups (ages <18 and >18 years). Conclusions Levetiracetam (LEV) was not superior to valproate (VPA) in terms of efficacy or safety outcomes. In addition, children (<18 years) and adults (>18 years) might have similar responses to LEV and VPA. Additional RCTs are required to verify our results. Highlights • Levetiracetam (LEV) was not superior to valproate (VPA) in terms of efficacy outcomes.• There were no significant differences in the safety outcomes between LEV and VPA.• The efficacy of VPA was better in children than in adults, but the safety profile was opposite.• There is no difference in efficacy and safety between children and adults with LEV.
| S-EPMC9932733 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSuper-refractory status epilepticus (SRSE) represents the culmination of refractory status epilepticus (RSE) and carries a significant risk of poor neurological outcome and high mortality. RSE is not defined primarily by seizure duration, but by failure to respond to appropriate antiseizure treatment. SRSE is present when a RSE persists or recurs after more than 24 h of treatment with anesthetics. No evidence-based treatment algorithms can be provided for SRSE. Therefore, we propose a pragmatic standard operating procedure (SOP) for the management of SRSE that addresses the existing uncertainties in the treatment of SRSE and provides options for resolution and decision-making.CommentsFirst, we recommend the assessment of persistent seizure activity and the evaluation of differential diagnoses to confirm correct diagnosis. Relevant differential diagnoses include psychogenic non-epileptic seizures, hypoxic, metabolic, or toxic encephalopathies, and tetanus. During SE or in severe encephalopathies, a so-called electroclinical ictal-interictal continuum may occur, which denotes an intermediate stage that cannot be defined with certainty as ictal or interictal by EEG and should not lead to harmful overtreatment. Because both prognosis and specific treatment options depend crucially on the etiology of SRSE, the etiological evaluation should be performed rapidly. When SRSE is confirmed, various pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options are available.ConclusionWe provide a pragmatical SOP for adult people with SRSE.
| S-EPMC9394073 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are extensively used worldwide to treat a wide range of disorders other than epilepsy, such as neuropathic pain, migraine, and bipolar disorder. Due to this situation more than 20 new third-generation AEDs have been introduced in the market recently. The future design of new AEDs must also have potential to help in the non-epileptic disorders. The wide acceptance of second generation AEDs for the management of various non-epileptic disorders has caused the emergence of generics in the market. The wide use of approved AEDs outside epilepsy is based on both economic and scientific reasons. Bipolar disorders, migraine prophylaxis, fibromyalgia, and neuropathic pain represent the most attractive indication expansion opportunities for anticonvulsant developers, providing blockbuster revenues. Strong growth in non-epilepsy conditions will see Pfizer's Lyrica become the market leading brand by 2018. In this review, we mainly focus on the current status of new AEDs in the treatment of chronic pain and migraine prophylaxis. AEDs have a strong analgesic potential and this is demonstrated by the wide use of carbamazepine in trigeminal neuralgia and sodium valproate in migraine prophylaxis. At present, data on the new AEDs for non-epileptic conditions are inconclusive. Not all AEDs are effective in the management of neuropathic pain and migraine. Only those AEDs whose mechanisms of action are match with pathophysiology of the disease, have potential to show efficacy in non-epileptic disorder. For this better understanding of the pathophysiology of the disease and mechanisms of action of new AEDs are essential requirement before initiating pre-clinical and clinical trials. Many new AEDs show good results in the animal model and open-label studies but fail to provide strong evidence at randomized, placebo-controlled trials. The final decision regarding the clinical efficacy of the particular AEDs in a specific non-epileptic disorder should be withdrawal from randomized placebo trials rather than open-label studies; otherwise this may lead to off-label uses of drug. The purpose of the present review is to relate the various mechanisms of action of new AEDs to pathophysiological mechanisms and clinical efficacy in neuropathic pain and migraine.
| S-EPMC4996999 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEarly termination of prolonged seizures with intravenous administration of benzodiazepines improves outcomes. For faster and more reliable administration, paramedics increasingly use an intramuscular route.MethodsThis double-blind, randomized, noninferiority trial compared the efficacy of intramuscular midazolam with that of intravenous lorazepam for children and adults in status epilepticus treated by paramedics. Subjects whose convulsions had persisted for more than 5 minutes and who were still convulsing after paramedics arrived were given the study medication by either intramuscular autoinjector or intravenous infusion. The primary outcome was absence of seizures at the time of arrival in the emergency department without the need for rescue therapy. Secondary outcomes included endotracheal intubation, recurrent seizures, and timing of treatment relative to the cessation of convulsive seizures. This trial tested the hypothesis that intramuscular midazolam was noninferior to intravenous lorazepam by a margin of 10 percentage points.ResultsAt the time of arrival in the emergency department, seizures were absent without rescue therapy in 329 of 448 subjects (73.4%) in the intramuscular-midazolam group and in 282 of 445 (63.4%) in the intravenous-lorazepam group (absolute difference, 10 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 4.0 to 16.1; P<0.001 for both noninferiority and superiority). The two treatment groups were similar with respect to need for endotracheal intubation (14.1% of subjects with intramuscular midazolam and 14.4% with intravenous lorazepam) and recurrence of seizures (11.4% and 10.6%, respectively). Among subjects whose seizures ceased before arrival in the emergency department, the median times to active treatment were 1.2 minutes in the intramuscular-midazolam group and 4.8 minutes in the intravenous-lorazepam group, with corresponding median times from active treatment to cessation of convulsions of 3.3 minutes and 1.6 minutes. Adverse-event rates were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsFor subjects in status epilepticus, intramuscular midazolam is at least as safe and effective as intravenous lorazepam for prehospital seizure cessation. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00809146.).
| S-EPMC3307101 | biostudies-literature