Safety and Effectiveness of Levetiracetam and Phenytoin as Second-line Drugs in Neonatal Seizures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Neonatal seizures are often refractory to first-line treatment, such as phenobarbital. Levetiracetam and phenytoin are commonly used second-line drugs to treat neonatal seizures, but they have not been directly compared. The objective of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of levetiracetam and phenytoin as second-line drugs for neonatal seizures. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted of neonates given levetiracetam or phenytoin following phenobarbital for neonatal seizures. The association with levetiracetam or phenytoin and adverse drug events (ADEs) was assessed using the Naranjo scale. Effectiveness was defined as the need for a third-line antiepileptic drug. Results One hundred and fifty-two patients were included in this study: 75 patients in the levetiracetam group and 77 patients in the phenytoin group. A higher proportion of patients in the phenytoin group (21%) experienced one or more ADEs compared to the levetiracetam group (8%) ( P = .025). The most common ADE in the phenytoin group was hypotension (13%), and it was more frequent compared to levetiracetam (1.3%) ( P = .006). The most common ADE in the levetiracetam group was irritability (4%). The use of a third-line antiepileptic drug was similar between levetiracetam (60%) and phenytoin (62%) ( P = .78). Conclusion ADEs were more frequent in the phenytoin group compared to the levetiracetam group. Levetiracetam and phenytoin were similarly effective in treating neonatal seizures. However, both second-line drugs still have less than optimal effectiveness. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".