Cargando…
Can Generic Intravenous Levetiracetam Be Used for Acute Repetitive Convulsive Seizure or Status Epilepticus? A Randomized Controlled Trial
INTRODUCTION: Intravenous levetiracetam (IV LEV) is approved for treatment status epilepticus (SE). However, the drug’s high cost must be considered when deciding on a treatment strategy. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of brand-name and generic IV LEV for acute repetitive convulsive seizur...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Healthcare
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6858918/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31407191 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40120-019-00150-x |
Sumario: | INTRODUCTION: Intravenous levetiracetam (IV LEV) is approved for treatment status epilepticus (SE). However, the drug’s high cost must be considered when deciding on a treatment strategy. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of brand-name and generic IV LEV for acute repetitive convulsive seizure (ARCS) or SE. METHODS: Forty patients aged 18 years or older who had been diagnosed with SE or ARCS were included in this double-blind study. Patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio (via computer-generated code) to receive either brand-name or generic IV LEV. The primary outcomes were seizure control and the number of seizure exacerbations during the 24 h after drug administration, while the secondary outcomes were electroencephalographic (EEG) findings, serious adverse events, and clinical outcome at hospital discharge. RESULTS: Forty patients were randomly assigned administration with either brand-name IV LEV (10 SE and 10 ARCS patients) or generic IV LEV; 7 SE and 13 ARCS patients). There was no significant difference in patients’ baseline characteristics. The seizure control rate was 75% in the brand-name IV LEV group and 65% in the generic IV LEV group (p value: 0.490). Five (25%) patients in the brand-name IV LEV group, and six (30%) patients in the generic IV LEV group developed seizure exacerbations within 24 h after drug administration (p value 0.723). There were no reports of drug-related adverse events. Two of the patients taking brand-name IV LEV and one taking the generic IV LEV died (p value > 0.999). CONCLUSION: Treatment with the generic IV LEV had comparable outcomes with brand-name IV LEV. The generic IV LEV may be an alternative medication for the treatment of SE and ARCS to reduce treatment costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: TCTR20190513001. FUNDING: Great Eastern Drug Company. |
---|