Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of levetiracetam versus valproate in patients with established status epilepticus: A systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Wang S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9932733 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBenzodiazepine-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.MethodsIn 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.FindingsBetween 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.InterpretationChildren, 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.FundingNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health.

Project description:Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have compared vancomycin and teicoplanin administered systemically for the treatment of suspected or proven infections. A comprehensive search of trials without year, language, or publication status restrictions was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using the fixed-effect model (RRs of >1 favor vancomycin). Twenty-four trials were included. All-cause mortality was similar overall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21), and there was no significant heterogeneity. In trials that used adequate allocation concealment, the results favored teicoplanin (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06), while in trials with unknown methods or inadequate concealment, the results favored vancomycin (RR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 10.30). The latter trials might have recruited more severely ill patients. No other variable affected the RRs for mortality, including the assessment of glycopeptides administered empirically or for proven infections, neutropenia, the participant's age, and drug dosing. There were no significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to clinical failure (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05), microbiological failure (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.65), and other efficacy outcomes. Lower RRs (in favor of teicoplanin) for clinical failure were observed with a lower risk of bias and when treatment was initiated for infections caused by gram-positive organisms rather than empirically. Total adverse events (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74), nephrotoxicity (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61), and red man syndrome were significantly less frequent with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin is not inferior to vancomycin with regard to efficacy and is associated with a lower adverse event rate than vancomycin.

Project description:Status epilepticus has been shown to activate the proliferation of neural stem cells in the hippocampus of the brain, while also causing a large amount of neuronal death, especially in the subgranular zone of the dentate gyrus and the subventricular zone. Simultaneously, proliferating stem cells tend to migrate to areas with obvious damage. Our previous studies have clearly confirmed the effect of sodium valproate on cognitive function in rats with convulsive status epilepticus. However, whether neurogenesis can play a role in the antiepileptic effect of sodium valproate remains unknown. A model of convulsive status epilepticus was established in Wistar rats by intraperitoneal injection of 3 mEq/kg lithium chloride, and intraperitoneal injection of pilocarpine 40 mg/kg after 18-20 hours. Sodium valproate (100, 200, 300, 400, 500, or 600 mg/kg) was intragastrically administered six times every day (4-hour intervals) for 5 days. To determine the best dosage, sodium valproate concentration was measured from the plasma. The effective concentration of sodium valproate in the plasma of the rats that received the 300-mg/kg intervention was 82.26 ± 11.23 μg/mL. Thus, 300 mg/kg was subsequently used as the intervention concentration of sodium valproate. The following changes were seen: Recording excitatory postsynaptic potentials in the CA1 region revealed high-frequency stimulation-induced long-term potentiation. Immunohistochemical staining for BrdU-positive cells in the brain revealed that sodium valproate intervention markedly increased the success rate and the duration of induced long-term potentiation in rats with convulsive status epilepticus. The intervention also reduced the number of newborn neurons in the subgranular area of the hippocampus and subventricular zone and inhibited the migration of newborn neurons to the dentate gyrus. These results indicate that sodium valproate can effectively inhibit the abnormal proliferation and migration of neural stem cells and newborn neurons after convulsive status epilepticus, and improve learning and memory ability.

Project description:Status epilepticus (SE) is a life-threatening emergency with high morbidity and mortality. In people with epilepsy, the management of SE is focused on early medical treatment. Stiripentol is a third-generation antiseizure medication (ASM) approved for refractory generalized tonic-clonic seizures in Dravet syndrome. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of stiripentol in reducing the incidence of SE in patients with Dravet syndrome or any epilepsy characterized by recurrent SE. The PubMed and Cochrane databases were systematically searched, and gray literature was hand-searched. Search results were screened by title and abstract; studies with data on the effect of stiripentol on SE outcomes, including the cessation of SE, reduction in number of SE episodes, or reduction in hospitalizations, were included. Of 66 records identified, 17 studies were eligible for inclusion, of which 15 were human studies (n = 474; aged 1.1-78 years), and two were animal experiments. Results of retrospective or prospective observational studies showed that stiripentol as add-on therapy to ASMs such as clobazam or valproate reduced the incidence of SE in patients with Dravet syndrome or other developmental and epileptic encephalopathies (DEEs). A mean of 68% of patients (range 41%-100%) had a ≥50% reduction in SE episodes from baseline, and 26%-100% of patients (mean 77%) became SE-free after stiripentol initiation. Moreover, this review found stiripentol, used as acute treatment, may also be effective for the cessation of super-refractory SE, but data are limited to three retrospective case series. Stiripentol was generally well-tolerated. In conclusion, stiripentol reduces the incidence of SE episodes in patients with Dravet syndrome and potentially other DEEs, and it promotes cessation of super-refractory SE in patients with and without a history of seizures. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Status epilepticus (SE) is a life-threatening, long-lasting seizure occurring in patients with/without epilepsy. This article analyzed 15 published studies that investigated the effects and safety of the anti-seizure medication stiripentol for preventing SE in epilepsy patients (prevention) or stopping an SE episode (cessation), and two animal studies that investigated how stiripentol works. In epilepsy patients, stiripentol halved the number of SE episodes in 41-100% of patients, 26-100% of patients became SE-free, and stiripentol was considered to be well tolerated. In patients with/without epilepsy, stiripentol may stop the SE episode after other drugs like anesthetics have not worked.

Project description:Background: Neonatal seizures are a common neurological emergency in newborns. Phenobarbital (PB) is the first-line antiepileptic drug (AED). However, PB has some side effects, such as hypotension and respiratory depression, and it can accelerate neuronal apoptosis in the immature brain. Levetiracetam (LEV), a new antiepileptic drug, has been used as a second-line drug for the treatment of neonatal seizures. Compared with PB, LEV has many advantages, including a low incidence of side effects and better neurodevelopmental outcomes. However, there are only a few systematic reviews of LEV for the treatment of neonatal seizures. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of LEV for neonatal seizures and to compare the efficacy, side effects, and neurological outcomes between LEV and PB in the treatment of neonatal seizures. Methods: The keywords LEV, PB, and neonatal seizure were searched in the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, clinicaltrials.gov, and China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI) databases with a last update in July 2021 to collect high-quality studies. We collected studies studying the efficacy or safety of LEV and PB in the treatment of neonatal seizures applying strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data were extracted and outcome measures, including efficacy, side effect rate, neurological score, and mortality rate, were analyzed with RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Ten articles were finally included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that there was no difference in efficacy between LEV and PB in the treatment of neonatal seizures. Compared with PB, the incidence of side effects of LEV was lower. The incidence of hypotension and respiratory depression in the LEV group was significantly lower than that in the PB group. In terms of long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes, there was no significant difference in the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) scores between LEV and PB. Conclusion: PB is still the first-line AED recommended by the WHO for the treatment of neonatal seizures. The new AEDs LEV may not have better efficacy than PB. At the same time, LEV is associated with better neurodevelopment outcomes and a lower risk of adverse effects. In addition, continuous EEG monitoring should be used to diagnose neonatal seizures to evaluate the severity of the seizures, remission, and drug efficacy. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42021279029.

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.