The Roald Dahl Neurophysiology Department, Alder Hey Children's Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
Liverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2020 Nov;24(58):1-96. doi: 10.3310/hta24580.
Convulsive status epilepticus is the most common neurological emergency in children. Its management is important to avoid or minimise neurological morbidity and death. The current first-choice second-line drug is phenytoin (Epanutin, Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA), for which there is no robust scientific evidence.
To determine whether phenytoin or levetiracetam (Keppra, UCB Pharma, Brussels, Belgium) is the more clinically effective intravenous second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus and to help better inform its management.
A multicentre parallel-group randomised open-label superiority trial with a nested mixed-method study to assess recruitment and research without prior consent.
Participants were recruited from 30 paediatric emergency departments in the UK.
Participants aged 6 months to 17 years 11 months, who were presenting with convulsive status epilepticus and were failing to respond to first-line treatment.
Intravenous levetiracetam (40 mg/kg) or intravenous phenytoin (20 mg/kg).
Primary outcome - time from randomisation to cessation of all visible signs of convulsive status epilepticus. Secondary outcomes - further anticonvulsants to manage the convulsive status epilepticus after the initial agent, the need for rapid sequence induction owing to ongoing convulsive status epilepticus, admission to critical care and serious adverse reactions.
Between 17 July 2015 and 7 April 2018, 286 participants were randomised, treated and consented. A total of 152 participants were allocated to receive levetiracetam and 134 participants to receive phenytoin. Convulsive status epilepticus was terminated in 106 (70%) participants who were allocated to levetiracetam and 86 (64%) participants who were allocated to phenytoin. Median time from randomisation to convulsive status epilepticus cessation was 35 (interquartile range 20-not assessable) minutes in the levetiracetam group and 45 (interquartile range 24-not assessable) minutes in the phenytoin group (hazard ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.60; = 0.2). Results were robust to prespecified sensitivity analyses, including time from treatment commencement to convulsive status epilepticus termination and competing risks. One phenytoin-treated participant experienced serious adverse reactions.
First, this was an open-label trial. A blinded design was considered too complex, in part because of the markedly different infusion rates of the two drugs. Second, there was subjectivity in the assessment of 'cessation of all signs of continuous, rhythmic clonic activity' as the primary outcome, rather than fixed time points to assess convulsive status epilepticus termination. However, site training included simulated demonstration of seizure cessation. Third, the time point of randomisation resulted in convulsive status epilepticus termination prior to administration of trial treatment in some cases. This affected both treatment arms equally and had been prespecified at the design stage. Last, safety measures were a secondary outcome, but the trial was not powered to demonstrate difference in serious adverse reactions between treatment groups.
Levetiracetam was not statistically superior to phenytoin in convulsive status epilepticus termination rate, time taken to terminate convulsive status epilepticus or frequency of serious adverse reactions. The results suggest that it may be an alternative to phenytoin in the second-line management of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus. Simple trial design, bespoke site training and effective leadership were found to facilitate practitioner commitment to the trial and its success. We provide a framework to optimise recruitment discussions in paediatric emergency medicine trials.
Future work should include a meta-analysis of published studies and the possible sequential use of levetiracetam and phenytoin or sodium valproate in the second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus.
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22567894 and European Clinical Trials Database EudraCT number 2014-002188-13.
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 24, No. 58. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
癫痫持续状态是儿童中最常见的神经急症。其管理对于避免或最小化神经功能障碍和死亡至关重要。目前的一线二线药物是苯妥英钠(Epanutin,辉瑞公司,纽约,NY,美国),但缺乏强有力的科学证据。
确定苯妥英钠或左乙拉西坦(开浦兰,UCB 制药公司,布鲁塞尔,比利时)在治疗儿童癫痫持续状态的二线静脉内治疗中是否更具临床效果,并帮助更好地指导其管理。
一项多中心平行组随机开放标签优效性试验,嵌套了一项混合方法研究,以评估无事先同意的招募和研究。
参与者从英国 30 家儿科急诊部门招募。
年龄在 6 个月至 17 岁 11 个月之间,出现癫痫持续状态且对一线治疗无反应的患者。
静脉内左乙拉西坦(40mg/kg)或静脉内苯妥英钠(20mg/kg)。
主要结局-从随机分组到所有可见癫痫持续状态征象停止的时间。次要结局-在初始药物后进一步使用抗惊厥药物来管理癫痫持续状态、由于持续癫痫持续状态需要快速序列诱导、入住重症监护病房和严重不良反应。
2015 年 7 月 17 日至 2018 年 4 月 7 日,共招募了 286 名参与者,进行了治疗和同意。共有 152 名参与者被分配接受左乙拉西坦,134 名参与者接受苯妥英钠。106 名(70%)接受左乙拉西坦的参与者和 86 名(64%)接受苯妥英钠的参与者癫痫持续状态停止。左乙拉西坦组中癫痫持续状态停止的中位数时间为 35 分钟(四分位距 20-无法评估),苯妥英钠组为 45 分钟(四分位距 24-无法评估)(危险比 1.20,95%置信区间 0.91 至 1.60;=0.2)。结果在包括从治疗开始到癫痫持续状态停止的时间和竞争风险的预设敏感性分析中是稳健的。一名接受苯妥英钠治疗的参与者出现严重不良反应。
首先,这是一项开放性试验。由于两种药物的输注率差异很大,因此考虑使用盲法设计过于复杂。其次,主要结局为“所有持续、节律性阵挛活动的迹象停止”的评估存在主观性,而不是固定的时间点来评估癫痫持续状态的终止。然而,现场培训包括对癫痫发作停止的模拟演示。第三,随机分组的时间点导致在某些情况下,在给予试验治疗之前,癫痫持续状态就已经终止。这对两个治疗组都有同等影响,并且在设计阶段就已经预先设定好了。最后,安全性措施是次要结局,但该试验没有足够的效力来证明治疗组之间严重不良反应的差异。
左乙拉西坦在癫痫持续状态终止率、终止癫痫持续状态所需时间或严重不良反应频率方面与苯妥英钠相比没有统计学优势。结果表明,它可能是苯妥英钠在儿童癫痫持续状态二线治疗中的替代药物。简单的试验设计、专门的现场培训和有效的领导力被发现有助于从业者对试验的承诺和其成功。我们提供了一个框架,以优化儿科急诊医学试验中的招募讨论。
未来的工作应包括对已发表研究的荟萃分析,以及在儿童癫痫持续状态的二线治疗中可能使用左乙拉西坦和苯妥英钠或丙戊酸钠的序贯使用。
目前的对照试验是由英国国家卫生研究院(NIHR)卫生技术评估计划资助的,将在 ;第 24 卷,第 58 期完整发表。请访问 NIHR 期刊库网站以获取进一步的项目信息。