Explore the vast range of titles available.

In light of the rising prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), new strategies to prevent, halt, and reverse this condition are needed urgently. Perturbations of brain network activity are observed in AD patients and in conditions that increase the risk of developing AD, suggesting that aberrant network activity might contribute to AD-related cognitive decline. Human amyloid precursor protein (hAPP) transgenic mice simulate key aspects of AD, including pathologically elevated levels of amyloid-β peptides in brain, aberrant neural network activity, remodeling of hippocampal circuits, synaptic deficits, and behavioral abnormalities. Whether these alterations are linked in a causal chain remains unknown. To explore whether hAPP/amyloid-β–induced aberrant network activity contributes to synaptic and cognitive deficits, we treated hAPP mice with different antiepileptic drugs. Among the drugs tested, only levetiracetam (LEV) effectively reduced abnormal spike activity detected by electroencephalography. Chronic treatment with LEV also reversed hippocampal remodeling, behavioral abnormalities, synaptic dysfunction, and deficits in learning and memory in hAPP mice. Our findings support the hypothesis that aberrant network activity contributes causally to synaptic and cognitive deficits in hAPP mice. LEV might also help ameliorate related abnormalities in people who have or are at risk for AD.

Generalised convulsive status epilepticus (GCSE) should be treated quickly. Benzodiazepines are the only drug treatment available so far that is effective before admission to hospital. We assessed whether addition of the antiepileptic drug levetiracetam to the benzodiazepine clonazepam would improve prehospital treatment of GCSE. We did a prehospital, randomised, double-blind, phase 3, placebo-controlled, superiority trial to determine the efficacy of adding intravenous levetiracetam (2·5 g) to clonazepam (1 mg) in treatment of GCSE in 13 emergency medical service centres and 26 hospital departments in France. Randomisation was done at the Paris Descartes Clinical Research Unit with a list of random numbers generated by computer. Adults with convulsions lasting longer than 5 min were randomly assigned (1:1) by prehospital physicians to receive levetiracetam or placebo in combination with clonazepam. All physicians and paramedics were masked to group assignments. If the status epilepticus lasted beyond 5 min after drug injection, a second dose of 1 mg clonazepam was given. The primary outcome was cessation of convulsions within 15 min of drug injection. We analysed the modified intention-to-treat population that had received at least one injection of clonazepam and levetiracetam or placebo, excluding patients without valid consent and those randomised more than once. The trial is registered at EudraCT, number 2007-005782-35. Between July 20, 2009, and Dec 15, 2012, 107 patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo and 96 were assigned to receive levetiracetam. The trial was discontinued on Dec 15, 2012 when interim analysis showed no evidence of a treatment difference, and 68 patients in each group were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Convulsions stopped at 15 min of drug injection in 57 of 68 patients (84%) receiving clonazepam and placebo and in 50 of 68 patients (74%) receiving clonazepam and levetiracetam (percentage difference −10·3%, 95% CI −24·0 to 3·4). Three deaths, 19 of 47 (40 %) serious adverse events, and 90 of 197 (46%) non-serious events were reported in the levetiracetam group, and four deaths, 28 of 47 (60%) serious events, and 107 of 197 (54%) non-serious events were reported in the placebo group. The addition of levetiracetam to clonazepam treatment presented no advantage over clonazepam treatment alone in the control of GCSE before admission to hospital. Future prehospital trials could assess the efficacy of clonazepam alone as a first-line treatment in status epilepticus and the efficacy of a second injection of clonazepam with another antiepileptic drug as second-line treatment. UCB Pharma.

Widespread resistance of Anopheles sp. populations to pyrethroid insecticides has led to the search for sustainable alternatives in the plant kingdom. Among many botanicals, there is great interest in essential oils and their constituents. Many researchers have explored essential oils (EOs) to determine their toxicity and identify repellent molecules that are effective against Anopheles populations. Essential oils are volatile and fragrant substances with an oily consistency typically produced by plants. They contain a variety of volatile molecules such as terpenes and terpenoids, phenol-derived aromatic components and aliphatic components at quite different concentrations with a significant insecticide potential, essentially as ovicidal, larvicidal, adulticidal, repellency, antifeedant, growth and reproduction inhibitors. The current review provides a summary of chemical composition of EOs, their toxicity at different developmental stages (eggs, larvae and adults), their repellent effects against Anopheles populations, for which there is little information available until now. An overview of antagonist and synergistic phenomena between secondary metabolites, the mode of action as well as microencapsulation technologies are also given in this review. Finally, the potential use of EOs as an alternative to current insecticides has been discussed.

ObjectivePhenytoin (PHT) is routinely used for seizure prophylaxis in patients with brain tumours during and after craniotomy, despite incomplete evidence. We performed a prospective, randomised study to investigate the significance of prophylactic use of levetiracetam (LEV), in comparison with PHT, for patients with supratentorial tumours in the perioperative period.MethodsPatients were randomised to receive LEV, 500 mg/body every 12 h until postoperative day 7, or PHT, 15–18 mg/kg fosphenytoin followed by 125 mg PHT every 12 h until postoperative day 7. The primary end point was the occurrence of seizures, and secondary end points included the occurrence of haematological and non-haematological adverse events.ResultsOne hundred and forty-six patients were randomised to receive LEV (n=73) or PHT (n=73). The incidence of seizures was significantly less in the LEV group (1.4%) compared with the PHT group (15.1%, p=0.005), suggesting benefit of LEV over PHT. The observed OR for being seizure free in the LEV prophylaxis group relative to the PHT group was 12.77 (95% CI 2.39 to 236.71, p=0.001). In a subgroup analysis of patients who did not have seizures before craniotomy, similar results were demonstrated: the incidence of seizures was 1.9% (LEV) and 13.8% (PHT, p=0.034), and OR was 8.16 (95% CI 1.42 to 154.19, p=0.015). LEV was completed in all cases, although PHT was withdrawn in five patients owing to liver dysfunction (1), skin eruption (2) and atrial fibrillation (2).ConclusionsProphylactic use of LEV in the perioperative period is recommended because it is safe and significantly reduces the incidence of seizures in this period.Trial registration numberUMIN13971.

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is characterized by the progressive destruction and dysfunction of central neurons. AD patients commonly have unprovoked seizures compared with age-matched controls. Amyloid peptide-related inflammation is thought to be an important aspect of AD pathogenesis. We previously reported that NLRP3 inflammasome KO mice, when bred into APPswe/PS1ΔE9 (APP/PS1) mice, are completely protected from amyloid-induced AD-like disease, presumably because they cannot produce mature IL1β or IL18. To test the role of IL18, we bred IL18KO mice with APP/PS1 mice. Surprisingly, IL18KO/APP/PS1 mice developed a lethal seizure disorder that was completely reversed by the anticonvulsant levetiracetam. IL18-deficient AD mice showed a lower threshold in chemically induced seizures and a selective increase in gene expression related to increased neuronal activity. IL18-deficient AD mice exhibited increased excitatory synaptic proteins, spine density, and basal excitatory synaptic transmission that contributed to seizure activity. This study identifies a role for IL18 in suppressing aberrant neuronal transmission in AD.

ObjectivesTo confirm that levetiracetam (LEV) demonstrates predictable pharmacokinetics(PK) at higher doses and to study the pharmacodynamics(PD) of LEV.DesignPharmacokinetic data from the NEOLEV1 and NEOLEV2 trials were analysed using a non-linear mixed effects modelling approach. A post hoc analysis of the effect of LEV on seizure burden was conducted.SettingNeonatal intensive care unit.PatientsTerm neonates with electrographically confirmed seizures.InterventionsIn NEOLEV1, neonates with seizures persisting following phenobarbital (PHB) received LEV 20 or 40 mg/kg bolus followed by 5 or 10 mg/kg maintenance dose(MD) daily. In NEOLEV2, patients received a 40 mg/kg intravenous LEV load, followed by 10 mg/kg doses 8 hourly. If seizures persisted, a further 20 mg/kg intravenous load was given. If seizures persisted, PHB was given. PK data were collected from 16 NEOLEV1 patients and 33 NEOLEV2 patients. cEEG data from 48 NEOLEV2 patients were analysed to investigate onset of action and seizure burden reduction.Main outcome measuresClearance (CL) and volume of distribution (Vd) were determined. Covariates that significantly affected LEV disposition were identified.ResultsPrimary outcome: The median initial LEV level was 57 µg/mL (range 19–107) after the first loading dose and at least 12 µg/mL at 48 hours in all infants. CL and Vd were estimated to be 0.0538 L/hour and 0.832 L, respectively. A direct relationship between postnatal age and CL was observed. The final population pharmacokinetic(PopPK) model described the observed data well without significant biases. CL and Vd were described as CL (L/hour)=0.0538×(weight in kg/3.34)0.75×(postnatal age in days/5.5) 0.402 and Vd (L)=0.832×(weight in kg/3.34).Seizure burden reduced within 30 min of LEV administration. 28% of patients were completely seizure free after LEV. In an additional 25% of patients, seizure burden reduced by 50%.ConclusionsLEV pharmacokinetics remained predictable at higher doses. Very high-dose LEV can now be studied in neonates.Trial registration number NCT01720667.

Background Factors affecting serum concentrations of levetiracetam in dogs are unknown and could affect the efficacy of levetiracetam in controlling seizures in dogs with epilepsy. Hypothesis/Objectives Higher PO doses of levetiracetam will be needed in dogs to achieve serum concentrations shown to be effective in humans. Determine factors that could influence serum levetiracetam concentrations and justify dose adjustment in some epileptic dogs. Animals Sixty‐nine client‐owned dogs with epilepsy treated with levetiracetam alone or in combination, based on 127 trough serum concentration measurements of levetiracetam. Methods Retrospective cohort study. Linear mixed models were used to assess the effect of patient signalment and concurrent drug administration on serum concentrations of levetiracetam and the effect of serum concentration of levetiracetam on seizure frequency reduction. Results The PO dose of levetiracetam significantly explained changes in serum levetiracetam concentration, and this causal link was stronger with monotherapy (R2 = 0.59, P < .001). Phenobarbital significantly decreased serum levetiracetam concentration in a dose dependent manner (R2 = 0.30, P = .003). Based on our model, a levetiracetam dosage of 99–216 mg/kg/day is necessary to obtain a serum levetiracetam concentration of 20 μg/mL when used alone or concurrently with 7 mg/kg/day of phenobarbital. No other factors were found to influence serum levetiracetam concentrations. No therapeutic range could be identified. Conclusion and Clinical Importance Our data suggest that a dosage of 99–216 mg/kg/day of levetiracetam is needed to achieve a serum concentration known to be therapeutically effective in humans, especially when administered concomitantly with phenobarbital.

There is an increasing interest in nootropic drugs for the treatment of CNS disorders. Since the last meta-analysis of the clinical efficacy of piracetam, more information has accumulated. The primary objective of this systematic survey is to evaluate the clinical outcomes as well as the scientific literature relating to the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, mechanism of action, dosing, toxicology and adverse effects of marketed and investigational drugs. The major focus of the literature search was on articles demonstrating evidence-based clinical investigations during the past 10 years for the following therapeutic categories of CNS disorders: (i) cognition/memory; (ii) epilepsy and seizure; (iii) neurodegenerative diseases; (iv) stroke/ischaemia; and (v) stress and anxiety. In this article, piracetam-like compounds are divided into three subgroups based on their chemical structures, known efficacy and intended clinical uses. Subgroup 1 drugs include piracetam, oxiracetam, aniracetam, pramiracetam and phenylpiracetam, which have been used in humans and some of which are available as dietary supplements. Of these, oxiracetam and aniracetam are no longer in clinical use. Pramiracetam reportedly improved cognitive deficits associated with traumatic brain injuries. Although piracetam exhibited no long-term benefits for the treatment of mild cognitive impairments, recent studies demonstrated its neuroprotective effect when used during coronary bypass surgery. It was also effective in the treatment of cognitive disorders of cerebrovascular and traumatic origins; however, its overall effect on lowering depression and anxiety was higher than improving memory. As add-on therapy, it appears to benefit individuals with myoclonus epilepsy and tardive dyskinesia. Phenylpiracetam is more potent than piracetam and is used for a wider range of indications. In combination with a vasodilator drug, piracetam appeared to have an additive beneficial effect on various cognitive disabilities. Subgroup 2 drugs include levetiracetam, seletracetam and brivaracetam, which demonstrate antiepileptic activity, although their cognitive effects are unclear. Subgroup 3 includes piracetam derivatives with unknown clinical efficacies, and of these nefiracetam failed to improve cognition in post-stroke patients and rolipram is currently in clinical trials as an antidepressant. The remaining compounds of this subgroup are at various preclinical stages of research. The modes of action of piracetam and most of its derivatives remain an enigma. Differential effects on subtypes of glutamate receptors, but not the GABAergic actions, have been implicated. Piracetam seems to activate calcium influx into neuronal cells; however, this function is questionable in the light of findings that a persistent calcium inflow may have deleterious impact on neuronal cells. Although subgroup 2 compounds act via binding to another neuronal receptor (synaptic vesicle 2A), some of the subgroup 3 compounds, such as nefiracetam, are similar to those of subgroup 1. Based on calculations of the efficacy rates, our assessments indicate notable improvements in clinical outcomes with some of these agents.

Background and Objective Antiseizure medications (ASMs) can potentially trigger psychobehavioral adverse events associated with the onset or exacerbation of psychiatric symptoms such as irritability, aggression, and hyperactivity. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of levetiracetam and valproic acid on changes in clinical features of anger, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). The purpose was to furnish guidance on rational drug selection in children and adolescents with epilepsy to minimize psychiatric comorbidity in the treatment of epilepsy. Method This was a prospective, observational, cohort study involving treatment-naïve children aged 7–18 years with newly diagnosed generalized or focal epilepsy who were prescribed levetiracetam or valproic acid as monotherapy for a 6-month period and regularly followed up. Psychiatric assessment was conducted at the time of the new epilepsy diagnosis and at the six-month follow-up. These assessments were performed using the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children Current and Lifetime Version (DSM-5), a structured psychiatric interview, as well as the State-Trait Anger Expression Style Inventory and Turgay DSM-IV Based Disruptive Behaviour Disorders Screening and Rating Scale. Anger subscores, ADHD symptoms, change in diagnosis, focal and generalized epilepsy groups, continuous seizures and seizure-free periods before and 6 months after treatment with valproic acid and levetiracetam were compared. Results A total of 50 children, 25 in the valproic acid group and 25 in the levetiracetam group, with a mean age of 11.92 ± 3.08 years, were included in the study. There was a statistically significant increase in the ADHD subscale score post-treatment among patients receiving levetiracetam ( p = 0.045) and valproic acid ( p = 0.034) compared with pre-treatment. The change in both anger-in and anger-out expression scores with treatment was significantly higher in patients receiving levetiracetam ( p = 0.035) compared with those receiving valproic acid ( p = 0.026). Statistically, there was a significant difference in the diagnostic criteria of the levetiracetam group pre- and post-treatment ( p = 0.026). The proportion of patients in whom the diagnostic criteria for ADHD+ODD were fulfilled increased from 16% before treatment to 48% after treatment, a statistically significant increase ( p = 0.026). Conclusion This study found an increase in internalized anger features and ADHD symptom severity in children with epilepsy treated with valproic acid and levetiracetam. In those prescribed levetiracetam, there was a statistically significant rise in the proportion meeting the diagnostic criteria for ADHD + ODD. Our research is one of the first to prospectively examine the psychiatric assessment of children diagnosed with epilepsy. The remarkable results demonstrate changes in psychiatric diagnoses associated with the treatment of levetiracetam and valproic acid. Furthermore, a considerable rise in ADHD symptoms was observed in those treated with valproic acid.