Volume 144, Issue 4 pp. 366-374
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Efficacy of lacosamide and phenytoin in status epilepticus: A systematic review

Prateek Kumar Panda

Prateek Kumar Panda

Pediatric Neurology Division, Department of Pediatrics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, India

Search for more papers by this author
Pragnya Panda

Pragnya Panda

Department of Pediatrics, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

Search for more papers by this author
Lesa Dawman

Lesa Dawman

Department of Neurology, King George Medical University, Lucknow, India

Search for more papers by this author
Indar Kumar Sharawat

Corresponding Author

Indar Kumar Sharawat

Pediatric Neurology Division, Department of Pediatrics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, India

Correspondence

Indar Kumar Sharawat, Associate Professor and Chief, Pediatric Neurology Division, Department of Pediatrics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India-249203.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 17 May 2021
Citations: 21

Funding information

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the evidence on efficacy, safety, tolerability, and impact on short term/long functional outcome of lacosamide (LCM) and phenytoin (PHT) in patients with status epilepticus.

Materials & Methods

We conducted a systematic literature search of relevant electronic databases using a suitable search strategy to identify studies directly comparing PHT and LCM, irrespective of dose and duration in patients with convulsive and/or nonconvulsive status epilepticus (SE). We used a standardized assessment form to extract information on the study design, data sources, methodologic framework, efficacy, and adverse events attributed to PHT and LCM from included studies and compared the efficacy and safety outcomes, using a fixed/random effect model.

Results

Five studies were found to be eligible for inclusion out of 192 search items, enrolling a total of 115 and 166 participants (predominantly with SE) in LCM and PHT arm, respectively. Baseline characteristics were comparable between both arms. The proportion with seizure control was comparable between both arms (57.3% in LCM vs. 45.7% in PHT arm, p = 0.28) and even in the subgroup analysis separately for convulsive and non-convulsive SE. Proportion with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) were comparable in both (17.6% vs. 12.2%, p = 0.20), but serious adverse events (SAE) were higher in PHT arm (5.1% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.049). The proportion with all-cause mortality and survival with moderate-severe disability were comparable between both arms (p = 0.23 and 0.37, respectively).

Conclusion

LCM has comparable efficacy with fewer SAEs as compared to PHT for achieving seizure control in patients with SE.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

None.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

NA

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.