Pharmacokinetics of Levetiracetam Seizure Prophylaxis in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.

BACKGROUND: Drug pharmacokinetics (PK) are altered in neurocritically ill patients, and optimal levetiracetam dosing for seizure prophylaxis is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates levetiracetam PK in critically ill patients with severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) receiving intravenous levetiracetam 1000 mg every 8 (LEV8) to 12 (LEV12) hours for seizure prophylaxis. METHODS: This prospective, open-label study was conducted at a level 1 trauma, academic, quaternary care center. Patients with sTBI receiving seizure prophylaxis with LEV8 or LEV12 were eligible for enrollment. Five sequential, steady-state, postdose serum levetiracetam concentrations were obtained. Non-compartmental analysis (NCA) and compartmental approaches were employed for estimating pharmacokinetic parameters and projecting steady-state trough concentrations. Pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between LEV8 and LEV12 patients. Monte Carlo simulations (MCS) were performed to determine probability of target trough attainment (PTA) of 6 to 20 mg/L. A secondary analysis evaluated PTA for weight-tiered levetiracetam dosing. RESULTS: Ten male patients (5 LEV8; 5 LEV12) were included. The NCA-based systemic clearance and elimination half-life were 5.3 ± 1.2 L/h and 4.8 ± 0.64 hours. A one-compartment model provided a higher steady-state trough concentration for the LEV8 group compared with the LEV12 group (13.7 ± 4.3 mg/L vs 6.3 ± 1.7 mg/L; P = 0.008). Monte Carlo simulations predicted regimens of 500 mg every 6 hours, 1000 mg every 8 hours, and 2000 mg every 12 hours achieved therapeutic target attainment. Weight-tiered dosing regimens achieved therapeutic target attainment using a 75 kg breakpoint. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Neurocritically ill patients exhibit rapid levetiracetam clearance resulting in a short elimination half-life. Findings of this study suggest regimens of levetiracetam 500 mg every 6 hours, 1000 mg every 8 hours, or 2000 mg every 12 hours may be required for optimal therapeutic target attainment. Patient weight of 75 kg may serve as a breakpoint for weight-guided dosing to optimize levetiracetam therapeutic target attainment for seizure prophylaxis.

Inactivated Four-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate Dosing Practices for Reversal of Warfarin-Related Intracranial Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Inactivated four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (I4F-PCC, Kcentra®) has become an important agent for the urgent or emergent reversal of bleeding associated with vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin. There is recognized inter-institutional variability with the use of I4F-PCC, especially as it relates to dosing practices. We sought to characterize variations in I4F-PCC dosing practices and their impact on patient outcomes and describe overall real-world clinical practice surrounding I4F-PCC utilization in the context of the management of warfarin-related intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective pragmatic registry study of adult patients admitted at a participating study site between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, who received I4F-PCC for reversal of warfarin-related ICH. Practices around warfarin-related ICH reversal in context of I4F-PCC utilization are described, including repeat I4F-PCC dosing, adjunctive reversal agents, and dose rounding policies (i.e., rounding doses to nearest vial size vs preparing exact/unrounded doses). All research was approved by local human investigation committees at each institution. RESULTS: Seventeen institutions contributed data on 528 patients to this registry. These institutions were primarily urban centers (74%), located in the southeast USA (47%), with Level 1 Trauma designation (79%), and with Comprehensive Stroke Center designation (74%). Most patients included in the study had sustained a non-traumatic ICH (68%), had a median admission GCS of 14 (IQR 7-15), and were receiving warfarin for atrial fibrillation (57.4%). There was substantial time latency between baseline INR and I4F-PCC (median 2.4 h, IQR 1.4-4.5 h). Most patients received adjunctive reversal agents, including vitamin K (89.5%) and fresh frozen plasma (FFP) (31.9%). A smaller proportion (6.0%) of patients received repeat I4F-PCC dosing. The median ICU length of stay (LOS) was 3 days (IQR 2-7 days), median hospital LOS was 6 days (IQR 3-12 days), and overall mortality rate was 28.8%. For institutions rounding doses to the nearest vial size, the first post-I4F-PCC dose INR was statistically but not clinically significantly lower than for institutions without vial size dose rounding, with comparable degrees of INR reduction from baseline. No differences were observed between dose rounding cohorts in adverse effects, ICU or hospital LOS, modified Rankin score at discharge, or mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients received single doses of I4F-PCC, with adjunctive reversal agents and rounding doses to vial size. The time difference from baseline INR to factor product administration is a potential opportunity for process improvement in the management of warfarin-related ICH.

South Asian-Specific MYBPC3 Δ25bp Deletion Carriers Display Hypercontraction and Impaired Diastolic Function Under Exercise Stress.

Background: A 25-base pair (25bp) intronic deletion in the MYBPC3 gene enriched in South Asians (SAs) is a risk allele for late-onset left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, hypertrophy, and heart failure (HF) with several forms of cardiomyopathy. However, the effect of this variant on exercise parameters has not been evaluated. Methods: As a pilot study, 10 asymptomatic SA carriers of the MYBPC3 Δ25bp variant (52.9 ± 2.14 years) and 10 age- and gender-matched non-carriers (NCs) (50.1 ± 2.7 years) were evaluated at baseline and under exercise stress conditions using bicycle exercise echocardiography and continuous cardiac monitoring. Results: Baseline echocardiography parameters were not different between the two groups. However, in response to exercise stress, the carriers of Δ25bp had significantly higher LV ejection fraction (%) (CI: 4.57 ± 1.93; p < 0.0001), LV outflow tract peak velocity (m/s) (CI: 0.19 ± 0.07; p < 0.0001), and higher aortic valve (AV) peak velocity (m/s) (CI: 0.103 ± 0.08; p = 0.01) in comparison to NCs, and E/A ratio, a marker of diastolic compliance, was significantly lower in Δ25bp carriers (CI: 0.107 ± 0.102; p = 0.038). Interestingly, LV end-diastolic diameter (LVIDdia) was augmented in NCs in response to stress, while it did not increase in Δ25bp carriers (CI: 0.239 ± 0.125; p = 0.0002). Further, stress-induced right ventricular systolic excursion velocity s' (m/s), as a marker of right ventricle function, increased similarly in both groups, but tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion increased more in carriers (slope: 0.008; p = 0.0001), suggesting right ventricle functional differences between the two groups. Conclusions: These data support that MYBPC3 Δ25bp is associated with LV hypercontraction under stress conditions with evidence of diastolic impairment.

Treatment of Hyponatremia in Patients with Acute Neurological Injury.

BACKGROUND: Little data exist regarding the practice of sodium management in acute neurologically injured patients. This study describes the practice variations, thresholds for treatment, and effectiveness of treatment in this population. METHODS: This retrospective, multicenter, observational study identified 400 ICU patients, from 17 centers, admitted for ≥48 h with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), traumatic brain injury (TBI), intraparenchymal hemorrhage, or intracranial tumors between January 1, 2011 and July 31, 2012. Data collection included demographics, APACHE II, Glascow Coma Score (GCS), serum sodium (Na+), fluid rate and tonicity, use of sodium-altering therapies, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, and modified Rankin score upon discharge. Data were collected for the first 21 days of ICU admission or ICU discharge, whichever came first. Sodium trigger for treatment defined as the Na+ value prior to treatment with response defined as an increase of ≥4 mEq/L at 24 h. RESULTS: Sodium-altering therapy was initiated in 34 % (137/400) of patients with 23 % (32/137) having Na+ >135 mEq/L at time of treatment initiation. The most common indications for treatment were declining serum Na+ (68/116, 59 %) and cerebral edema with mental status changes (21/116, 18 %). Median Na+ treatment trigger was 133 mEq/L (IQR 129-139) with no difference between diagnoses. Incidence and treatment of hyponatremia was more common in SAH and TBI [SAH (49/106, 46 %), TBI (39/97, 40 %), ICH (27/102, 26 %), tumor (22/95, 23 %); p = 0.001]. The most common initial treatment was hypertonic saline (85/137, 62 %), followed by oral sodium chloride tablets (42/137, 31 %) and fluid restriction (15/137, 11 %). Among treated patients, 60 % had a response at 24 h. Treated patients had lower admission GCS (12 vs. 14, p = 0.02) and higher APACHE II scores (12 vs. 10, p = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in outcome when comparing treated and untreated patients. CONCLUSION: Sodium-altering therapy is commonly employed among neurologically injured patients. Hypertonic saline infusions were used first line in more than half of treated patients with the majority having a positive response at 24 h. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of various treatments on patient outcomes.

Recommendations for the Critical Care Management of Devastating Brain Injury: Prognostication, Psychosocial, and Ethical Management : A Position Statement for Healthcare Professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society.

Devastating brain injuries (DBIs) profoundly damage cerebral function and frequently cause death. DBI survivors admitted to critical care will suffer both intracranial and extracranial effects from their brain injury. The indicators of quality care in DBI are not completely defined, and despite best efforts many patients will not survive, although others may have better outcomes than originally anticipated. Inaccuracies in prognostication can result in premature termination of life support, thereby biasing outcomes research and creating a self-fulfilling cycle where the predicted course is almost invariably dismal. Because of the potential complexities and controversies involved in the management of devastating brain injury, the Neurocritical Care Society organized a panel of expert clinicians from neurocritical care, neuroanesthesia, neurology, neurosurgery, emergency medicine, nursing, and pharmacy to develop an evidence-based guideline with practice recommendations. The panel intends for this guideline to be used by critical care physicians, neurologists, emergency physicians, and other health professionals, with specific emphasis on management during the first 72-h post-injury. Following an extensive literature review, the panel used the GRADE methodology to evaluate the robustness of the data. They made actionable recommendations based on the quality of evidence, as well as on considerations of risk: benefit ratios, cost, and user preference. The panel generated recommendations regarding prognostication, psychosocial issues, and ethical considerations.

Drug treatment of acute ischemic stroke.

Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is the fourth leading cause of death and the leading cause of adult disability in the USA. AIS most commonly occurs when a blood vessel is obstructed leading to irreversible brain injury and subsequent focal neurologic deficits. Drug treatment of AIS involves intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase (recombinant tissue plasminogen activator [rtPA]). Intravenous alteplase promotes thrombolysis by hydrolyzing plasminogen to form the proteolytic enzyme plasmin. Plasmin targets the blood clot with limited systemic thrombolytic effects. Alteplase must be administered within a short time window to appropriate patients to optimize its therapeutic efficacy. Recent trials have shown this time window may be extended from 3 to 4.5 hours in select patients. Other acute supportive interventions for AIS include maintaining normoglycemia, euthermia and treating severe hypertension. Urgent anticoagulation for AIS has generally not shown benefits that exceed the hemorrhage risks in the acute setting. Urgent antiplatelet use for AIS has limited benefits and should only promptly be initiated if alteplase was not administered, or after 24 hours if alteplase was administered. The majority of AIS patients do not receive thrombolytic therapy due to late arrival to emergency departments and currently there is a paucity of acute interventions for them. Ongoing clinical trials may lead to further medical breakthroughs to limit the damage inflicted by this devastating disease.

Practice variations in the management of status epilepticus.

BACKGROUND: Numerous anticonvulsant agents are now available for treating status epilepticus (SE). However, a paucity of data is available to guide clinicians in the initial treatment of seizures or SE. This study describes the current strategies being employed to treat SE in the U.S.A. METHODS: Fifteen American academic medical centers completed a retrospective, multicenter, observational study by reviewing 10-20 of the most recent cases of SE at their institution prior to December 31, 2009. A multivariate analysis was performed to determine factors associated with cessation of seizures. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients were included. Most patients with SE had a seizure disorder (58%). SE patients required a median of 3 AEDs for treatment. Three quarters of patients received a benzodiazepine as first-line therapy (74.7%). Phenytoin (33.3%) and levetiracetam (10%) were commonly used as the second AED. Continuous infusions of propofol, barbiturate, or benzodiazepine were used in 36% of patients. Median time to resolution of SE was 1 day and was positively associated with presence of a complex partial seizure, AED non-compliance prior to admission, and lorazepam plus another AED as initial therapy. Prolonged ICU length of stay and topiramate therapy prior to admission were negatively associated with SE resolution. Mortality was higher in patients without a history of seizure (22.2 vs. 6.9%, p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a benzodiazepine followed by an AED, such as phenytoin or levetiracetam, is common as first and second-line therapy for SE and appears to be associated with a shorter time to SE resolution. AED selection thereafter is highly variable. Patients without a history of seizure who develop SE had a higher mortality rate.

Prospective, randomized, single-blinded comparative trial of intravenous levetiracetam versus phenytoin for seizure prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Anti-epileptic drugs are commonly used for seizure prophylaxis after neurological injury. We performed a study comparing intravenous (IV) levetiracetam (LEV) to IV phenytoin (PHT) for seizure prophylaxis after neurological injury. METHODS: In this prospective, single-center, randomized, single-blinded comparative trial of LEV versus PHT (2:1 ratio) in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) or subarachnoid hemorrhage (NCT00618436) patients received IV load with either LEV or fosphenytoin followed by standard IV doses of LEV or PHT. Doses were adjusted to maintain therapeutic serum PHT concentrations or if patients had seizures. Continuous EEG (cEEG) monitoring was performed for the initial 72 h; outcome data were collected. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients were randomized (LEV = 34; PHT = 18); 89% with sTBI. When controlling for baseline severity, LEV patients experienced better long-term outcomes than those on PHT; the Disability Rating Scale score was lower at 3 months (P = 0.042) and the Glasgow Outcomes Scale score was higher at 6 months (P = 0.039). There were no differences between groups in seizure occurrence during cEEG (LEV 5/34 vs. PHT 3/18; P = 1.0) or at 6 months (LEV 1/20 vs. PHT 0/14; P = 1.0), mortality (LEV 14/34 vs. PHT 4/18; P = 0.227). There were no differences in side effects between groups (all P > 0.15) except for a lower frequency of worsened neurological status (P = 0.024), and gastrointestinal problems (P = 0.043) in LEV-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study of LEV versus PHT for seizure prevention in the NSICU showed improved long-term outcomes of LEV-treated patients vis-à-vis PHT-treated patients. LEV appears to be an alternative to PHT for seizure prophylaxis in this setting.