Elsevier

Epilepsy & Behavior

Volume 64, Part A, November 2016, Pages 110-115
Epilepsy & Behavior

Review
Direct and indirect comparison meta-analysis of levetiracetam versus phenytoin or valproate for convulsive status epilepticus

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2016.09.030Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Direct and indirect comparisons between VPA, LEV, and PHT as second-line AEDs for SE

  • No difference in SE cessation between VPA and PHT and between LEV and PHT

  • No difference between LEV and VPA for SE cessation in indirect comparisons

  • Lack of statistically significant differences is due to insufficient statistical power.

  • Underpowered RCTs in SE represent a waste of resources and are ethically questionable.

Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of published studies to directly compare intravenous (IV) levetiracetam (LEV) with IV phenytoin (PHT) or IV valproate (VPA) as second-line treatment of status epilepticus (SE), to indirectly compare intravenous IV LEV with IV VPA using common reference-based indirect comparison meta-analysis, and to verify whether results of indirect comparisons are consistent with results of head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) directly comparing IV LEV with IV VPA.

Methods

Random-effects Mantel–Haenszel meta-analyses to obtain odds ratios (ORs) for efficacy and safety of LEV versus VPA and LEV or VPA versus PHT were used. Adjusted indirect comparisons between LEV and VPA were used.

Results

Two RCTs comparing LEV with PHT (144 episodes of SE) and 3 RCTs comparing VPA with PHT (227 episodes of SE) were included. Direct comparisons showed no difference in clinical seizure cessation, neither between VPA and PHT (OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.57 to 2.03) nor between LEV and PHT (OR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.50 to 2.79). Indirect comparisons showed no difference between LEV and VPA for clinical seizure cessation (OR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.45 to 2.97). Results of indirect comparisons are consistent with results of a recent RCT directly comparing LEV with VPA.

Conclusion

The absence of a statistically significant difference in direct and indirect comparisons is due to the lack of sufficient statistical power to detect a difference. Conducting a RCT that has not enough people to detect a clinically important difference or to estimate an effect with sufficient precision can be regarded a waste of time and resources and may raise several ethical concerns, especially in RCT on SE.

Introduction

Status epilepticus (SE) is defined as a “condition resulting either from the failure of the mechanisms responsible for seizure termination or from the initiation of mechanisms, which lead to abnormally, prolonged seizures” [1]. If seizure activity persists over time, long-term consequences, including neuronal death, neuronal injury, and alteration of neuronal networks, depending on the type and duration of seizures, may occur [1]. It is therefore crucial to promptly recognize and adequately treat this condition, as SE is associated with high risk of morbidity and mortality [2].

Benzodiazepines represent the first-line treatments for SE. However, in approximately 30–40% of cases, SE in patients fails to respond to benzodiazepines, requiring an intravenous (IV) administration of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). The most common second-line treatments for SE include phenytoin (PHT), phenobarbital, valproate (VPA), levetiracetam (LEV), and lacosamide [3].

To date, the evidence supporting the use of LEV in SE is mostly limited to retrospective case series [4], [5]. Only two recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared IV LEV with either IV VPA [6] or IV PHT [6], [7] showing no differences with the comparator(s) in terms of clinical seizure cessation.

The data supporting the use of VPA as second-line treatment for SE are more robust, as this drug has been studied in six randomized controlled trials [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] showing good efficacy and tolerability [14], [15].

The relative efficacy of VPA, LEV, and the other second-line treatments for SE (lacosamide, phenytoin, and phenobarbital) has been assessed in a systematic review with meta-analysis [5]. Efficacy of LEV (68.5%; 95% CI: 56.2–78.7%) and VPA (75.7%; 95% CI: 63.7–84.8%) were found to be comparable with that of phenobarbital (73.6%; 95% CI: 58.3–84.8%) and somewhat higher than that of PHT (50.2%; 95% CI: 34.2–66.1%), suggesting that LEV and VPA may represent valid alternatives to phenobarbital and PHT as second-line treatments of SE.

In this study, we aimed 1. to perform a meta-analysis of IV LEV compared with IV VPA or IV PHT as second-line treatment of convulsive SE (generalized or focal) in patients of any age, 2. to indirectly estimate the efficacy of IV LEV and IV VPA through indirect comparison meta-analyses using IV PHT as common comparator, and 3. to assess whether results of indirect comparisons are consistent with results of a recent head-to-head RCT directly comparing IV LEV with IV VPA [6].

Section snippets

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Randomized controlled trials comparing IV LEV or IV VPA against IV PHT and RCTs comparing IV LEV versus IV VPA used as second-line treatment for convulsive SE (generalized or focal) were included in the meta-analysis.

Patients from any age group diagnosed with convulsive SE persisting despite first-line AEDs (benzodiazepines) were included. Status epilepticus was defined as convulsive seizures lasting > 5 min [1], [16]. We included all RCTs, blinded or not blinded, and excluded uncontrolled and

Statistical analysis

For each outcome, an intention-to-treat primary analysis was made to include all patients in the treatment group to which they were allocated, irrespective of the treatment they actually received.

Analyses were conducted using RevMan 5 (conventional meta-analysis for each AED), Excel and R 2.15.1 (common reference-based indirect comparison meta-analysis).

Results

The search strategy described above yielded 2671 results (1958 MEDLINE, 201 CENTRAL, 500 EMBASE, and 12 ClinicalTrials.gov) (Fig. 2). One study initially included was eventually excluded, as it assessed the efficacy of IV VPA used as first-line (and not as second-line) treatment for SE [8]. Hence, four studies were included (with a total of 321 episodes of SE), three comparing IV VPA with IV PHT [6], [9], [11] and two comparing IV LEV with IV PHT [7] or with IV VPA and IV PHT [6]. The study by

Discussion

Direct comparisons meta-analyses showed no difference in clinical seizure cessation, neither between IV VPA and IV PHT nor between IV LEV and IV PHT. The indirect-comparison meta-analysis using data generated from individual comparisons versus IV PHT showed no difference in efficacy between IV LEV and IV VPA used as second-line AEDs for convulsive SE.

Results of indirect comparisons are consistent with the results of the only RCT directly comparing IV LEV with IV VPA published so far [6] and,

Conflict of interest

There was no funding related to the preparation of this article.

Dr. Francesco Brigo received speakers΄ honoraria from Eisai, PeerVoice, and Sigma-Tau; has acted as a paid consultant to Eisai; has received travel support from UCB, Eisai, and ITALFARMACO.

Prof. Eugen Trinka has acted as a paid consultant to Bial, Biogen Idec, Eisai, Ever Neuropharma, Medtronics, Takeda, Upsher-Smith, and UCB; has received speakers' honoraria from Bial, Boehringer, Eisai, GL Lannacher, and UCB Pharma; and has

References (30)

  • R.J. DeLorenzo et al.

    Epidemiology of status epilepticus

    J Clin Neurophysiol

    (1995)
  • E. Trinka et al.

    Pharmacotherapy for status epilepticus

    Drugs

    (2015)
  • E. Trinka et al.

    New treatment options in status epilepticus: a critical review on intravenous levetiracetam

    Ther Adv Neurol Disord

    (2009)
  • U.K. Misra et al.

    Sodium valproate vs phenytoin in status epilepticus: a pilot study

    Neurology

    (2006)
  • V. Mehta et al.

    Intravenous sodium valproate versus diazepam infusion for the control of refractory status epilepticus in children: a randomized controlled trial

    J Child Neurol

    (2007)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text