Search

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., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Background: Recent studies have shown conflicting results regarding the effectiveness of levetiracetam for treating benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus (SE) compared with phenytoin. Therefore, a meta-analysis was carried out to assess the value of levetiracetam versus phenytoin in the pharmacotherapy of benzodiazepine-refractory SE., Objective: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam and phenytoin in the treatment of benzodiazepine-refractory SE., Methods: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that had been conducted to evaluate levetiracetam versus phenytoin for benzodiazepine-refractory SE, to April 2020. The data were assessed using Review Manager 5.3 software. The risk ratio (RR) was analyzed using dichotomous outcomes, and calculated using a random-effect model., Results: We pooled 1850 patients from 12 RCTs. Patients in the levetiracetam group had a significantly higher rate of clinical seizure cessation than in the phenytoin group (75.2% vs. 67.8%; RR 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.25, p = 0.003). Moreover, less adverse events were observed in the levetiracetam group than in the phenytoin group (17.8% vs. 21.4%; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70-0.97, p = 0.02). In subgroup analysis, clinical seizure cessation was achieved more frequently with a higher dose of levetiracetam (> 30 mg/kg) [RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.00-1.32, p = 0.05]. Furthermore, in the subgroup of children, levetiracetam showed a higher rate of clinical seizure cessation than phenytoin (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02-1.25, p = 0.02)., Conclusion: Pharmacotherapy for BZD-refractory SE by LEV is superior to PHT in efficacy and safety outcomes.

Introduction: Both levetiracetam (LEV) and brivaracetam (BRV) eliminate the electroencephalogram photoparoxysmal response (PPR) in the human phase IIa photosensitivity model of epilepsy. The physiochemical properties of BRV differ from those of LEV, having higher potency and lipophilicity plus 10- to 15-fold greater affinity for synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A., Objective: We compared the rapidity of the effects of both drugs in the central nervous system (CNS) of patients with photosensitive epilepsy using time to PPR elimination post-intravenous infusion as a pharmacodynamic endpoint., Methods: Using a randomized, double-blind, two-period, balanced, crossover design, we tested patients with photosensitive epilepsy with equipotent milligram doses of intravenous LEV 1500 mg versus BRV 100 mg post-15-min intravenous infusion (part 1) and post-5-min intravenous infusion (part 2, same doses). Eight patients per part were deemed sufficient with 80% power to determine a 70% reduction for intravenous BRV:LEV intrapatient time ratio to PPR elimination, with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. Plasma antiseizure medicine concentrations were measured using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry., Results: Nine patients [six women; mean age 27.8 years (range 18-42)] completed the study; seven of these participated in both parts 1 and 2. In 31 of 32 instances, patients experienced PPR elimination. In mixed-effects model time analysis, BRV eliminated PPRs more quickly than did LEV (median 2 vs. 7.5 min, respectively). However, no statistically significant difference in BRV:LEV time ratio to PPR elimination was observed for two of our multiple primary outcomes: for the 15-min infusion alone (p = 0.22) or the 5-min infusion alone (p = 0.11). However, BRV was faster when we excluded an outlier patient in part 1 (p = 0.0016). For our remaining primary outcome, parts 1 and 2 data combined, the median intrapatient BRV:LEV time ratio was 0.39 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16-0.91], i.e., PPR elimination was 61% faster with BRV, p = 0.039. PPR was completely eliminated in ≤ 2 min in 11 patients with BRV and in four patients with LEV. No period or carryover effects were seen. No serious or severe adverse effects occurred. At PPR elimination (n = 16), median plasma [BRV] was 250 ng/mL (range 30-4100) and median plasma [LEV] was 28.35 μg/mL (range 1-86.7)., Conclusion: Outcome studies directly comparing LEV and BRV are needed to define the clinical utility of the response with BRV, which was several minutes faster than that with LEV., Clinical Trials: ClinTrials.gov Identifier = NCT03580707; registered 07-09-18.