左乙拉西坦与磷苯妥英注射液作为儿童癫痫持续状态的二线治疗:一项检查有效性、耐受性和易用性的多中心研究。

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 PEDIATRICS
Pediatric Drugs Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-07 DOI:10.1007/s40272-025-00709-2
Armelle Hornard, François Severac, Vincent Laugel, Marie-Thérèse Abi Wardé, Claire Bansept, Yvan de Feraudy, Sandrine Haupt, Marie-Aude Spitz, Didier Eyer, Anne de Saint Martin, Sarah Baer
{"title":"左乙拉西坦与磷苯妥英注射液作为儿童癫痫持续状态的二线治疗:一项检查有效性、耐受性和易用性的多中心研究。","authors":"Armelle Hornard, François Severac, Vincent Laugel, Marie-Thérèse Abi Wardé, Claire Bansept, Yvan de Feraudy, Sandrine Haupt, Marie-Aude Spitz, Didier Eyer, Anne de Saint Martin, Sarah Baer","doi":"10.1007/s40272-025-00709-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Status epilepticus is a life-threatening neurological emergency that requires rapid and effective treatment to prevent long-term complications or death. Traditionally, phenytoin and its prodrug fosphenytoin have been used as second-line therapies following benzodiazepines. However, intravenous levetiracetam has emerged as a promising alternative because of its favorable safety profile and ease of administration, particularly in pediatric populations. This study aimed to evaluate whether intravenous levetiracetam was non-inferior to intravenous fosphenytoin as a second-line treatment for managing pediatric status epilepticus.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From November 2021 to May 2023, we implemented an updated local protocol that replaced fosphenytoin with levetiracetam as the second-line treatment for status epilepticus. Following this change, we conducted a 2-year multicenter study to evaluate its impact. For comparison, we also included patients treated under the previous protocol during the 2 years prior to the change, as a control group. An inverse probability of treatment weighting approach, based on the propensity score, was used to adjust for baseline characteristics between the two groups. Bayesian regression models were used to assess treatment effects in the weighted cohort. Treatment effectiveness was assessed using a composite measure of need for subsequent interventions, recurrence of status epilepticus within 24 h, seizure duration and length of hospital stay. We tested non-inferiority hypotheses for effectiveness criteria and if the probability of non-inferiority was greater than 95%, we also tested a superiority hypothesis. Safety was assessed by analyzing adverse events, mortality, admission to the intensive care unit, and transfer to the resuscitation unit. For safety criteria, only superiority was tested.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 127 patients with status epilepticus were evaluated during the study period; 84 patients in the fosphenytoin group (66%) and 43 patients in the levetiracetam group (34%). Of these, 52 patients had febrile status epilepticus (40.9%), 27 patients were treated with oral levetiracetam as part of their daily treatment regimen at the time of status epilepticus (21.3%), and 12 (9.4%) patients had been treated with levetiracetam during their lifetime but stopped at the time of status epilepticus. With intravenous levetiracetam, 62.8% of children were seizure free, compared with 37.2% of children taking fosphenytoin. The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter with levetiracetam than with fosphenytoin (reduction of 1.9 days with levetiracetam) and children were less likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (reduction of 18.1% with levetiracetam). The need for third-line treatment or seizure recurrence was significantly lower in the levetiracetam group (16.3% reduction compared with fosphenytoin). Adverse effects and seizure duration were not significantly different between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Using a composite outcome measure, we demonstrated that levetiracetam was not inferior to fosphenytoin with respect to seizure recurrence, the need for third-line therapy, intensive care unit admission, and the total length of hospital stays.</p>","PeriodicalId":19955,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Drugs","volume":" ","pages":"653-662"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Levetiracetam Versus Fosphenytoin Infusions as Second-Line Treatment for Pediatric Status Epilepticus: A Multicenter Study Examining Effectiveness, Tolerability, and Ease of Use.\",\"authors\":\"Armelle Hornard, François Severac, Vincent Laugel, Marie-Thérèse Abi Wardé, Claire Bansept, Yvan de Feraudy, Sandrine Haupt, Marie-Aude Spitz, Didier Eyer, Anne de Saint Martin, Sarah Baer\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40272-025-00709-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Status epilepticus is a life-threatening neurological emergency that requires rapid and effective treatment to prevent long-term complications or death. Traditionally, phenytoin and its prodrug fosphenytoin have been used as second-line therapies following benzodiazepines. However, intravenous levetiracetam has emerged as a promising alternative because of its favorable safety profile and ease of administration, particularly in pediatric populations. This study aimed to evaluate whether intravenous levetiracetam was non-inferior to intravenous fosphenytoin as a second-line treatment for managing pediatric status epilepticus.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From November 2021 to May 2023, we implemented an updated local protocol that replaced fosphenytoin with levetiracetam as the second-line treatment for status epilepticus. Following this change, we conducted a 2-year multicenter study to evaluate its impact. For comparison, we also included patients treated under the previous protocol during the 2 years prior to the change, as a control group. An inverse probability of treatment weighting approach, based on the propensity score, was used to adjust for baseline characteristics between the two groups. Bayesian regression models were used to assess treatment effects in the weighted cohort. Treatment effectiveness was assessed using a composite measure of need for subsequent interventions, recurrence of status epilepticus within 24 h, seizure duration and length of hospital stay. We tested non-inferiority hypotheses for effectiveness criteria and if the probability of non-inferiority was greater than 95%, we also tested a superiority hypothesis. Safety was assessed by analyzing adverse events, mortality, admission to the intensive care unit, and transfer to the resuscitation unit. For safety criteria, only superiority was tested.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 127 patients with status epilepticus were evaluated during the study period; 84 patients in the fosphenytoin group (66%) and 43 patients in the levetiracetam group (34%). Of these, 52 patients had febrile status epilepticus (40.9%), 27 patients were treated with oral levetiracetam as part of their daily treatment regimen at the time of status epilepticus (21.3%), and 12 (9.4%) patients had been treated with levetiracetam during their lifetime but stopped at the time of status epilepticus. With intravenous levetiracetam, 62.8% of children were seizure free, compared with 37.2% of children taking fosphenytoin. The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter with levetiracetam than with fosphenytoin (reduction of 1.9 days with levetiracetam) and children were less likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (reduction of 18.1% with levetiracetam). The need for third-line treatment or seizure recurrence was significantly lower in the levetiracetam group (16.3% reduction compared with fosphenytoin). Adverse effects and seizure duration were not significantly different between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Using a composite outcome measure, we demonstrated that levetiracetam was not inferior to fosphenytoin with respect to seizure recurrence, the need for third-line therapy, intensive care unit admission, and the total length of hospital stays.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19955,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatric Drugs\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"653-662\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatric Drugs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40272-025-00709-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Drugs","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40272-025-00709-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:癫痫持续状态是一种危及生命的神经系统急症,需要快速有效的治疗以防止长期并发症或死亡。传统上,苯妥英及其前药磷苯妥英被用作苯二氮卓类药物之后的二线治疗。然而,静脉注射左乙拉西坦已成为一种有希望的替代方案,因为它具有良好的安全性和易于给药,特别是在儿科人群中。本研究旨在评估静脉注射左乙拉西坦作为治疗儿童癫痫持续状态的二线治疗是否优于静脉注射磷苯妥英。方法:从2021年11月至2023年5月,我们实施了一项更新的局部方案,用左乙拉西坦替代磷苯妥英作为癫痫持续状态的二线治疗。在这一变化之后,我们进行了一项为期2年的多中心研究来评估其影响。为了进行比较,我们还纳入了在改变前2年内按照先前方案治疗的患者作为对照组。基于倾向评分的治疗加权逆概率方法用于调整两组之间的基线特征。贝叶斯回归模型用于评估加权队列的治疗效果。使用后续干预的需要、24小时内癫痫持续状态的复发、癫痫发作持续时间和住院时间的综合措施来评估治疗效果。我们检验了有效性标准的非劣效性假设,如果非劣效性的概率大于95%,我们也检验了优势假设。通过分析不良事件、死亡率、入住重症监护病房和转到复苏病房来评估安全性。对于安全标准,只测试了优越性。结果:研究期间共评估了127例癫痫持续状态患者;苯妥英组84例(66%),左乙拉西坦组43例(34%)。其中,52例患者有发热性癫痫持续状态(40.9%),27例患者在癫痫持续状态时口服左乙拉西坦作为日常治疗方案的一部分(21.3%),12例(9.4%)患者在其一生中接受过左乙拉西坦治疗,但在癫痫持续状态时停止使用。静脉注射左乙拉西坦的儿童无癫痫发作率为62.8%,而静脉注射磷苯妥英的儿童无癫痫发作率为37.2%。左乙拉西坦的住院时间明显短于磷苯妥英(左乙拉西坦减少1.9天),儿童入住重症监护病房的可能性更小(左乙拉西坦减少18.1%)。左乙西坦组三线治疗或癫痫复发的需求显著降低(与磷苯妥英相比减少16.3%)。两组不良反应和癫痫发作时间无显著差异。结论:通过综合结果测量,我们证明左乙莱西坦在癫痫复发、三线治疗需求、重症监护病房入住和总住院时间方面并不逊于磷苯妥英。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Levetiracetam Versus Fosphenytoin Infusions as Second-Line Treatment for Pediatric Status Epilepticus: A Multicenter Study Examining Effectiveness, Tolerability, and Ease of Use.

Background and objectives: Status epilepticus is a life-threatening neurological emergency that requires rapid and effective treatment to prevent long-term complications or death. Traditionally, phenytoin and its prodrug fosphenytoin have been used as second-line therapies following benzodiazepines. However, intravenous levetiracetam has emerged as a promising alternative because of its favorable safety profile and ease of administration, particularly in pediatric populations. This study aimed to evaluate whether intravenous levetiracetam was non-inferior to intravenous fosphenytoin as a second-line treatment for managing pediatric status epilepticus.

Methods: From November 2021 to May 2023, we implemented an updated local protocol that replaced fosphenytoin with levetiracetam as the second-line treatment for status epilepticus. Following this change, we conducted a 2-year multicenter study to evaluate its impact. For comparison, we also included patients treated under the previous protocol during the 2 years prior to the change, as a control group. An inverse probability of treatment weighting approach, based on the propensity score, was used to adjust for baseline characteristics between the two groups. Bayesian regression models were used to assess treatment effects in the weighted cohort. Treatment effectiveness was assessed using a composite measure of need for subsequent interventions, recurrence of status epilepticus within 24 h, seizure duration and length of hospital stay. We tested non-inferiority hypotheses for effectiveness criteria and if the probability of non-inferiority was greater than 95%, we also tested a superiority hypothesis. Safety was assessed by analyzing adverse events, mortality, admission to the intensive care unit, and transfer to the resuscitation unit. For safety criteria, only superiority was tested.

Results: In total, 127 patients with status epilepticus were evaluated during the study period; 84 patients in the fosphenytoin group (66%) and 43 patients in the levetiracetam group (34%). Of these, 52 patients had febrile status epilepticus (40.9%), 27 patients were treated with oral levetiracetam as part of their daily treatment regimen at the time of status epilepticus (21.3%), and 12 (9.4%) patients had been treated with levetiracetam during their lifetime but stopped at the time of status epilepticus. With intravenous levetiracetam, 62.8% of children were seizure free, compared with 37.2% of children taking fosphenytoin. The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter with levetiracetam than with fosphenytoin (reduction of 1.9 days with levetiracetam) and children were less likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (reduction of 18.1% with levetiracetam). The need for third-line treatment or seizure recurrence was significantly lower in the levetiracetam group (16.3% reduction compared with fosphenytoin). Adverse effects and seizure duration were not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusions: Using a composite outcome measure, we demonstrated that levetiracetam was not inferior to fosphenytoin with respect to seizure recurrence, the need for third-line therapy, intensive care unit admission, and the total length of hospital stays.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pediatric Drugs
Pediatric Drugs PEDIATRICS-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pediatric Drugs promotes the optimization and advancement of all aspects of pharmacotherapy for healthcare professionals interested in pediatric drug therapy (including vaccines). The program of review and original research articles provides healthcare decision makers with clinically applicable knowledge on issues relevant to drug therapy in all areas of neonatology and the care of children and adolescents. The Journal includes: -overviews of contentious or emerging issues. -comprehensive narrative reviews of topics relating to the effective and safe management of drug therapy through all stages of pediatric development. -practical reviews covering optimum drug management of specific clinical situations. -systematic reviews that collate empirical evidence to answer a specific research question, using explicit, systematic methods as outlined by the PRISMA statement. -Adis Drug Reviews of the properties and place in therapy of both newer and established drugs in the pediatric population. -original research articles reporting the results of well-designed studies with a strong link to clinical practice, such as clinical pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic studies, clinical trials, meta-analyses, outcomes research, and pharmacoeconomic and pharmacoepidemiological studies. Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in Pediatric Drugs may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信