Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31005385›Full record

Trial reportLancet (London, England)2019

Levetiracetam versus phenytoin for second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus (EcLiPSE): a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial.

Mark D Lyttle, Naomi E A Rainford, Carrol Gamble, Shrouk Messahel, Amy Humphreys, Helen Hickey, Kerry Woolfall, Louise Roper, Joanne Noblet, Elizabeth D Lee and 6 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyEquivalence TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Lancet (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
23.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

93 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 242 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Mark D LyttleEmergency Department, Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, Bristol, UK; Faculty of Health and Applied Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
Naomi E A RainfordClinical Trials Research Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; Institute of Child Health, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Carrol GambleDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; Clinical Trials Research Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; Institute of Child Health, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Shrouk MessahelEmergency Department, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Amy HumphreysClinical Trials Research Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; Institute of Child Health, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Helen HickeyClinical Trials Research Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; Institute of Child Health, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Kerry WoolfallInstitute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Louise RoperInstitute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Joanne NobletEmergency Department, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Elizabeth D LeeEmergency Department, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Sarah PotterEmergency Department, Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, Bristol, UK.
Paul TateClinical Trials Research Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; Institute of Child Health, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Anand IyerDepartment of Neurology, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Vicki EvansWrexham, Clwyd, UK.
Richard E AppletonDepartment of Neurology, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK. Electronic address: richardappleton55@hotmail.co.uk.
Paediatric Emergency Research in the United Kingdom & Ireland (PERUKI) collaborative
Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust · GBBristol Royal Hospital for Children · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBUniversity of the West of England · GBWrexham Maelor Hospital · GB

Funding

Department of Health 12/127/134
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhenytoin is the recommended second-line intravenous anticonvulsant for treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus in the UK; however, some evidence suggests that levetiracetam could be an effective and safer alternative. This trial compared the efficacy and safety of phenytoin and levetiracetam for second-line management of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus.

methodsThis open-label, randomised clinical trial was undertaken at 30 UK emergency departments at secondary and tertiary care centres. Participants aged 6 months to under 18 years, with convulsive status epilepticus requiring second-line treatment, were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated randomisation schedule to receive levetiracetam (40 mg/kg over 5 min) or phenytoin (20 mg/kg over at least 20 min), stratified by centre. The primary outcome was time from randomisation to cessation of convulsive status epilepticus, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (excluding those who did not require second-line treatment after randomisation and those who did not provide consent). This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN22567894.

findingsBetween July 17, 2015, and April 7, 2018, 1432 patients were assessed for eligibility. After exclusion of ineligible patients, 404 patients were randomly assigned. After exclusion of those who did not require second-line treatment and those who did not consent, 286 randomised participants were treated and had available data: 152 allocated to levetiracetam, and 134 to phenytoin. Convulsive status epilepticus was terminated in 106 (70%) children in the levetiracetam group and in 86 (64%) in the phenytoin group. Median time from randomisation to cessation of convulsive status epilepticus was 35 min (IQR 20 to not assessable) in the levetiracetam group and 45 min (24 to not assessable) in the phenytoin group (hazard ratio 1·20, 95% CI 0·91-1·60; p=0·20). One participant who received levetiracetam followed by phenytoin died as a result of catastrophic cerebral oedema unrelated to either treatment. One participant who received phenytoin had serious adverse reactions related to study treatment (hypotension considered to be immediately life-threatening [a serious adverse reaction] and increased focal seizures and decreased consciousness considered to be medically significant [a suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction]).

interpretationAlthough levetiracetam was not significantly superior to phenytoin, the results, together with previously reported safety profiles and comparative ease of administration of levetiracetam, suggest it could be an appropriate alternative to phenytoin as the first-choice, second-line anticonvulsant in the treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus.

fundingNational Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Indexed as

AdolescentAnticonvulsantsChildChild, PreschoolDrug Administration ScheduleDrug Resistant EpilepsyEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansInfantLevetiracetamMalePhenytoinStatus EpilepticusTreatment OutcomeUnited KingdomAnticonvulsantsLevetiracetamPhenytoin

Identifiers

PMID31005385
PMCPMC6551349
OpenAlexW2937512232

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.