An open-label, prospective, exploratory study of patients with epilepsy switching from levetiracetam to brivaracetam

Brivaracetam for the treatment of focal-onset seizures: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluations

INTRODUCTION

The goal of pharmacologic therapy with antiseizure medications (ASMs) is to achieve a seizure-free state with minimal side effects. About one third of patients treated with available ASMs continue to experience uncontrolled seizures. There is still need for new ASMs with enhanced effectiveness and tolerability.

AREAS COVERED

The present manuscript is based on an extensive Internet and PubMed search from 1999 to 2020. It is focused on the clinical and pharmacological properties of brivaracetam (BRV) in the treatment of epilepsy.

EXPERT OPINION

BRV is approved as add-on or monotherapy (in US) for the treatment of focal-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization. BRV is a high affinity synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A ligand, with 15-30-fold higher affinity than levetiracetam. The selectivity of BRV may be associated with fewer clinical adverse effects. BRV shares many of the pharmacokinetic characteristics of an ideal ASMs. Additionally, BRV has a low potential for clinically relevant drug-drug interactions. Its pharmacokinetic profile makes BRV a promising agent for the treatment of status epilepticus (SE). Although BRV is not approved for the treatment of SE, it has demonstrated promising preliminary results. Further studies are needed to explore the efficacy and tolerability of BRV in SE.

Depression and Anxiety in the Epilepsies: from Bench to Bedside

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Depression and anxiety substantially contribute to interictal disability in patients with epilepsy (PWE). This review summarizes current studies that shed light on mechanisms of comorbidity.

RECENT FINDINGS

Mounting epidemiological data implicate shared risk factors for anxiety/depression and seizure propensity, but these remain largely elusive and probably vary by epilepsy type. Within PWE, these symptoms appear to be associated with unique genetic, neuropathological, and connectivity profiles. Temporal lobe epilepsy has received enormous emphasis particularly in preclinical studies of comorbidity, where candidate neurobiological mechanisms underlying bidirectionality have been tested without psychopharmacological confounds. Depression and anxiety in epilepsy reflect dysfunction within broadly distributed limbic networks that may be the cause or consequence of epileptogenesis. In refractory epilepsy, seizures and/or certain anticonvulsants may distort central emotional homeostatic mechanisms that perpetually raise seizure risk. Developing future safe and effective combined anticonvulsant-antidepressant treatments will require a detailed understanding of anatomical and molecular nodes that pleiotropically enhance seizure risk and negatively alter emotionality.

Clinical experience with brivaracetam in a series of 46 children

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of the study was to analyze the efficacy of brivaracetam (BRV) in pediatric patients 12 months after starting treatment. The secondary objective was to establish safety 3, 6, and 12 months after starting treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

This was an observational and retrospective study. Data were collected from the electronic medical record. Inclusion criteria were as follows: patients under 18 years of age, diagnosis of focal or generalized epilepsy, treatment as an added therapy, initiation of treatment with BRV between June and September 2017, and at least one unprovoked seizure in the year prior to the start of treatment.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients were included. The response rate was 65%, including 30% seizure-free patients. The rate of adverse effects was 43.5%, resulting in withdrawal in 16 patients (34.7%). The most common adverse effects were drowsiness (17.3%) and irritability (17.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Brivaracetam is effective in very diverse childhood epilepsies, including some that present with primarily generalized seizures. Given the characteristics of the population studied, we have not been able to confirm a better tolerability of BRV compared with levetiracetam (LEV).

Brivaracetam efficacy and tolerability in clinical practice: A UK-based retrospective multicenter service evaluation

PURPOSE

This multicenter service evaluation explores the efficacy and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in an unselected, consecutive population in 'real-life' clinical settings.

METHOD

We retrospectively collected data from patient records at 11 UK hospitals and epilepsy centers. Consecutive patients prescribed BRV with at least 3 months of follow-up (FU) were included. Apart from reporting effectiveness and tolerability of BRV across the whole cohort, we compared treatment outcomes depending on previous levetiracetam use (LEV+ versus LEV-), comorbid learning disability (LD+ versus LD-), and epilepsy syndrome (focal versus generalized epilepsy).

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety patients (46% male, median age: 38 years, range: 15 to 77) with ≥3 months of FU were included. The median duration of BRV exposure was 12 months (range: 1 day to 72 months). Overall BRV retention was 71.1%. While 56.1% of patients improved in terms of seizure frequency category (daily, weekly, monthly, yearly seizures), 23.1% did not improve on this measure and 20.8% deteriorated. In terms of seizure frequency, 21% of patients experienced a ≥50% reduction, with 7.0% of all patients becoming seizure-free. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were reported by 107 (36.9%) patients, but there were no serious AEs. The commonest AEs were sedation/fatigue (18.3%), mood changes (9.0%), and irritability/aggression (4.8%). There were no significant differences in drug retention, seizure frequency outcomes, or AEs between the LEV+ and LEV- subgroups, or between patients with generalized or focal epilepsies. Although 15.5% of patients in the LD+ group achieved a ≥50% reduction, this rate was lower than in the LD- group.

CONCLUSIONS

This 'real-life' evaluation suggests that reductions in seizure frequency can be achieved with BRV in patients with highly refractory epilepsy. Brivaracetam may be a useful treatment option in patients who have previously failed to respond to or tolerate LEV, those with LD, or (off-label) those with generalized epilepsies.

Outcomes in three cases after brivaracetam treatment during pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Use of certain antiseizure drugs (ASDs) during pregnancy increases the risk of major congenital malformations, while less is known about newer ASDs. Based on the safety of levetiracetam, brivaracetam may be similarly safe in pregnancy; however, no cases have been published to date.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

We retrospectively identified three women with epilepsy treated with brivaracetam during pregnancy and described the maternal and neonatal outcomes.

METHODS

We reviewed the patients' medical records as well as the linked medical records of their infants to identify complications during pregnancy and delivery, neonatal complications, and evidence of major/minor congenital malformations.

RESULTS

Our series included one woman with idiopathic generalized epilepsy and two women with focal epilepsy (brivaracetam doses ranging from 50 to 200 mg daily). One patient with focal epilepsy experienced breakthrough seizures, and lamotrigine was added to brivaracetam. The other women had no neurologic complications during pregnancy. All three women had full-term deliveries without significant complications. Three healthy infants were born with Apgar scores of 9 and 9 and no major congenital malformations. Three minor congenital malformations were observed in two infants.

CONCLUSIONS

While the absence of major congenital malformations in these cases is encouraging, further data are needed to determine the safety of brivaracetam in pregnancy.

Long-term safety, efficacy, and quality of life outcomes with adjunctive brivaracetam treatment at individualized doses in patients with epilepsy: An up to 11-year, open-label, follow-up trial

Objective

To evaluate long‐term safety/tolerability of brivaracetam at individualized doses ≤200 mg/d (primary) and maintenance of efficacy over time (secondary) in adults with focal seizures or primary generalized seizures (PGS) enrolled in phase 3, open‐label, long‐term follow‐up trial N01199 (NCT00150800).

Methods

Patients ≥16 years of age who had completed double‐blind, placebo‐controlled adjunctive brivaracetam trials NCT00175825, NCT00490035, NCT00464269, or NCT00504881 were eligible. Outcomes included safety, efficacy, and quality of life.

Results

The safety set included 667 patients (focal seizures, 97.8%; PGS, 2.2%); the efficacy set included 648 patients with focal seizures and 15 patients with PGS. Overall, 49.2% of patients had ≥48 months of exposure. Treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 91.2% of all patients (91.3% of focal seizures group), brivaracetam discontinuation due to TEAEs in 14.8%, drug‐related TEAEs in 56.7%, and serious TEAEs in 22.8%. The most common TEAEs in the focal seizures group (≥15%) were headache (25.3%) and dizziness (21.9%). Mean changes from baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores at last value during 2‐year evaluation were −0.7 (standard deviation [SD] = 4.3) and −0.2 (SD = 4.4) overall. In the focal seizures group, median reduction from baseline in focal seizure frequency/28 days was 57.3%, 50% responder rate was 55.6%, and 6‐month and 12‐month seizure freedom rates were 30.3% and 20.3%, respectively. Efficacy outcomes improved by exposure duration cohort and then stabilized through the 108‐month cohort. Mean improvement from baseline in Patient‐Weighted Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory total score (efficacy set) was 5.7 (SD = 16.1, Cohen's d = 0.35) at month 12 and 6.5 (SD = 18.0, Cohen's d = 0.36) at month 24.

Significance

Adjunctive brivaracetam was well tolerated, with a good safety profile in long‐term use in adults with epilepsy at individualized doses. Approximately half of the patients remained in the trial at 4 years. Brivaracetam reduced focal seizure frequency versus baseline. Efficacy improved with increasing exposure duration and remained stable through the 9‐year cohort.

Brivaracetam: First Canadian Experience in an Intractable Epilepsy Population

Objective:

To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in a refractory epilepsy population in an outpatient clinical setting.

Methods:

Retrospective medical information system review and self-report questionnaire for all patients treated with BRV until the end of 2017.

Results:

Thirty-eight patients were included, 73.7% female and mean age 36.2. The mean number of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for previous use was 8.9, and for current use was 2.5. Mean seizure frequency in the last 3 months was 12 per month. At 3, 6, 12, and 15 months, the 50% responder rates were 36.1%, 32%, 41.2%, and 45.5%, respectively. Patients took BRV for a median duration of 8.25 months, ranging from 7 days to 60 months. Retention rate was 75.0%, 72.0%, 59.2%, and 47.9% at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months, respectively. Overall, the main reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (AEs) (52.3%), lack of efficacy (35.3%), or both (11.8%). The rate of total AEs was 60.5% according to medical records and 85.7% according to questionnaire, including mostly tiredness, psychiatric, and memory complaints. Psychiatric side effects occurred in 31.6% according to medical records and 47.4% according to questionnaire results, which is higher than previously reported and persisted throughout the study period.

Conclusions:

BRV appears to be a useful and safe add-on treatment, even in a very refractory group of patients. In this real-life clinical setting, psychiatric AEs were found at a higher rate than previously published.

Safety and tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam in epilepsy: In-depth pooled analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this analysis was to provide a comprehensive analysis of safety data for adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV), an antiepileptic drug (AED) of the racetam class, for treatment of focal seizures in patients with epilepsy.

METHODS

Data were pooled from two phase II, placebo-controlled, double-blind, dose-ranging trials (N01114 [ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00175929], N01193 [NCT00175825]) and three phase III, placebo-controlled, double-blind, 12-week trials (N01252 [NCT00490035], N01253 [NCT00464269], and N01358 [NCT01261325]) in patients aged ≥16 years with focal seizures, as well as a phase III, placebo-controlled, double-blind, 16-week trial in patients aged ≥16 years with focal or generalized epilepsy (N01254 [NCT00504881]). Data are presented for the approved therapeutic dose range of 50-200 mg/day. Data for BRV administered intravenously (25-150 mg doses) were pooled separately from one phase III trial (N01258 NCT01405508]) and two clinical pharmacology trials (N01256 [Part B] [UCB Pharma, data on file]; EP0007 [NCT01796899]). Adverse events (AEs) of interest were summarized in relevant categories.

RESULTS

The safety pool comprised 1957 patients: 1271 receiving adjunctive BRV and 686 receiving placebo. Overall, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was 66.9% with BRV versus 62.8% with placebo. The most frequently reported TEAEs with BRV (≥5% of patients) versus placebo were somnolence (13.3% vs. 7.9%), headache (10.5% vs. 11.5%), dizziness (10.0% vs. 7.0%), and fatigue (8.2% vs. 4.2%). Incidence of psychiatric disorder-related TEAEs was 11.3% with BRV versus 8.2% with placebo. Behavioral disorder-related TEAE incidence was low (4.0% with BRV vs. 2.5% with placebo). Irritability was reported in 2.7% of BRV-treated patients vs. 1.5% of patients receiving placebo; anger, aggression, and agitation were each reported by ≤1% of patients receiving BRV. Treatment-emergent adverse events potentially associated with psychosis were psychotic disorder (three patients on BRV vs. two patients on placebo), auditory hallucination, illusion, visual hallucination (one patient each on BRV), epileptic psychosis, and hallucination (one patient each on placebo). No additional safety concerns were identified in patients with intravenous (IV) BRV administration (n = 104).

CONCLUSIONS

These safety data for adjunctive BRV support its acceptable safety and tolerability profile.

Pharmacological Management of the Genetic Generalised Epilepsies in Adolescents and Adults

Common genetic generalised epilepsy syndromes encountered by clinicians include childhood and juvenile absence epilepsies, juvenile myoclonic epilepsy and generalised tonic-clonic seizures on awakening. Treatment of these syndromes involves largely the use of broad-spectrum antiseizure drugs. Those effective for the generalised epilepsies include sodium valproate, phenobarbital, ethosuximide, clobazam, clonazepam, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, topiramate, zonisamide and, more recently, perampanel and brivaracetam. Results from the few rigorous studies comparing outcomes with drugs for genetic generalised epilepsies show valproate to be the most effective. The majority of patients with genetic generalised epilepsy syndromes will become seizure free on antiseizure monotherapy; those for whom control proves elusive may benefit from combination regimens. Early counselling regarding management may assist the patient to come to terms with their diagnosis and improve long-term outcomes. Treatment can be lifelong in some individuals, although others may remain seizure free without medication. Choice of antiseizure medication depends on the efficacy for specific seizure types, as well as tolerability. For patients prescribed comedication, drug interactions should be considered. In particular, for young women taking oral hormonal contraceptives, ≥ 200 mg/day of topiramate can decrease the circulating concentration of ethinylestradiol and ≥ 12 mg/day of perampanel can induce levonorgestrel metabolism. The use of valproate in women of childbearing potential is limited by associated teratogenic and neurodevelopmental effects in offspring. Given that valproate is often the antiseizure drug of choice for genetic generalised epilepsies, this creates a dilemma for patients and clinicians. Decision making can be aided by comprehensive assessment and discussion of treatment options. Psychiatric comorbidities are common in adolescents and adults with genetic generalised epilepsies. These worsen the prognosis, both in terms of seizure control and quality of life. Attendant lifestyle issues can impact significantly on the individual and society. Frontal lobe dysfunction, which can present in patients with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, can adversely affect the long-term outlook, regardless of the nature of seizure control. Ongoing management requires consideration of psychosocial and behavioural factors that can complicate diagnosis and treatment. An assured supportive attitude by the neurologist can be an important contributor to a positive outcome. The mechanisms underlying genetic generalised epilepsies, including genetic abnormalities, are unclear at present. As the pathophysiology is unravelled, this may lead to the development of novel therapies and improved outcomes for patients with these syndromes.

Safety and Efficacy of Brivaracetam in Pediatric Refractory Epilepsy: A Single-Center Clinical Experience

Brivaracetam is a new antiepileptic drug with limited data in children. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy/tolerability of brivaracetam. This is a retrospective chart review of children/adolescents with refractory epilepsy treated with brivaracetam from 2016 to 2018. The primary outcome was seizure reduction (decrease in seizure frequency >50%). Twenty-three patients were identified. Mean age at initiation was 12.5 years. Fourteen were females. Epilepsy was focal in 11, generalized in 6, and mixed in 3. Average dose was 3.9 mg/kg/d. The mean duration of treatment was 8.2 months. Eight had greater than 50% decrease in seizure frequency, of which 7 had focal epilepsy, and 1 had Lennox-Gastaut/mixed epilepsy. Two had drowsiness and 3 behavioral complaints. One experienced tingling and dizziness. Our retrospective review suggests that brivaracetam is an effective therapy for refractory focal epilepsy in children older than 4 years of age.

Update on Antiepileptic Drugs 2019

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article is an update from the article on antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy published in the last Continuum issue on epilepsy and is intended to cover the vast majority of agents currently available to the neurologist in the management of patients with epilepsy. Treatment of epilepsy starts with AED monotherapy. Knowledge of the spectrum of efficacy, clinical pharmacology, and modes of use for individual AEDs is essential for optimal treatment for epilepsy. This article addresses AEDs individually, focusing on key pharmacokinetic characteristics, indications, and modes of use.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since the previous version of this article was published, three new AEDs, brivaracetam, cannabidiol, and stiripentol, have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and ezogabine was removed from the market because of decreased use as a result of bluish skin pigmentation and concern over potential retinal toxicity.Older AEDs are effective but have tolerability and pharmacokinetic disadvantages. Several newer AEDs have undergone comparative trials demonstrating efficacy equal to and tolerability at least equal to or better than older AEDs as first-line therapy. The list includes lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, levetiracetam, topiramate, zonisamide, and lacosamide. Pregabalin was found to be less effective than lamotrigine. Lacosamide, pregabalin, and eslicarbazepine have undergone successful trials of conversion to monotherapy. Other newer AEDs with a variety of mechanisms of action are suitable for adjunctive therapy. Most recently, the FDA adopted a policy that a drug's efficacy as adjunctive therapy in adults can be extrapolated to efficacy in monotherapy. In addition, efficacy in adults can be extrapolated for efficacy in children 4 years of age and older. Both extrapolations require data demonstrating that an AED has equivalent pharmacokinetics between its original approved use and its extrapolated use. In addition, the safety of the drug in pediatric patients has to be demonstrated in clinical studies that can be open label. Rational AED combinations should avoid AEDs with unfavorable pharmacokinetic interactions or pharmacodynamic interactions related to mechanism of action.

SUMMARY

Knowledge of AED pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and tolerability profiles facilitates the choice of appropriate AED therapy for patients with epilepsy.

Treatment with brivaracetam in children - The experience of a pediatric epilepsy center

INTRODUCTION

The new anticonvulsant brivaracetam is a levetiracetam analog which binds to the synaptic vesicle protein 2A, and inhibits excitatory neurotransmitters' release. Brivaracetam was Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicine Agency (EMA) approved in 2016 as adjunctive treatment for focal onset seizures in patients over 16 years of age, and in 2018 for children over four years of age. Our aim was to describe effectiveness and tolerability in real-life pediatric epilepsy clinic.

METHODS

Cross-sectional retrospective chart review of patients under 20 years of age, treated with brivaracetam. Positive response to treatment was considered when 50% decrease in seizure frequency was noted. In responders to levetiracetam, positive effect was regarded if switching to brivaracetam maintained at least the same seizure control.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients (67.7% males), aged 13.8 ± 4.07 (6.9-20 years), were treated with brivaracetam 3.8 mg/kg ± 1.8. Age of onset of epilepsy was 5.7 ± 3.7 years; 20 patients had focal epilepsies; and 11 had epileptic syndromes (5 - Lennox-Gastaut, 3 - myoclonic absence, 3 - myoclonic-atonic). Responder rate was 45.2%, with no statistical difference under and over 16 years of age (40% vs. 54.5%, Fisher's exact test). Eight patients had better response to seizures compared to levetiracetam. Gender, duration of epilepsy, and dosage did not affect epilepsy control. Six patients had seizure aggravation. Adverse effects were rare: mild somnolence (6.4%), psychosis (3.2%), and nausea (3.2%).

CONCLUSION

Brivaracetam is an effective add-on treatment in focal, as well as generalized seizures in children, with negligible side effects, including children who failed previously on levetiracetam. Seizure exacerbation may occur, but it's reason is unclear.

First clinical postmarketing experiences in the treatment of epilepsies with brivaracetam: a retrospective observational multicentre study

OBJECTIVES

Brivaracetam (BRV) is the latest approved antiepileptic drug and acts as a synaptic vesicle protein 2A ligand. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of BRV in the clinical setting.

DESIGN

Retrospective, observational multicentre study.

SETTING

We retrospectively collected clinical data of patients who received BRV in 10 epilepsy centres using a questionnaire that was answered by the reporting neurologist.

PARTICIPANTS

Data of 615 epilepsy patients treated with BRV were included in the study.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Efficacy regarding seizure frequency and tolerability of BRV were evaluated. Descriptive statistics complemented by X² contingency tests and effect sizes were performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 44% of the patients had a decreased, 38% a stable and 18% an increased seizure frequency. 17% of patients achieved seizure freedom after initiation of BRV. The seizure frequency decreased in 63% of 19 patients with BRV monotherapy. 27% reported adverse effects, but only 10% of patients with monotherapy. Brivaracetam was significantly more often associated with decreased seizure frequency in levetiracetam (LEV) naïve patients (p=0.012), but BRV also led to a decreased seizure frequency in 42% of patients who had been treated with LEV before, including 17% of patients who were completely seizure free. Adverse effects under LEV improved in 62% and deteriorated in 2% of patients after the switch to BRV. At latest follow-up (mean±SD = 26.3±6.5 months), 68% were still on BRV.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study shows that results of the phase III studies on BRV match data from real life clinical settings. Brivaracetam seems to be a useful alternative in patients who have suffered adverse effects while taking LEV.

Adjunctive brivaracetam in focal and generalized epilepsies: A single-center open-label prospective study in patients with psychiatric comorbidities and intellectual disability

Clinical studies suggest that the antiepileptic drug (AED) brivaracetam (BRV) is associated with fewer behavioral and psychiatric adverse events (AEs) compared with levetiracetam (LEV) in treating epilepsy. There are, however, few comparative studies of treatment-emergent AEs between patients on BRV with preexisting psychiatric or behavioral comorbidities to those without. Our study compared longer-term tolerability over a 26-month period between these patient groups and assessed the overall efficacy of BRV as add-on therapy. Patients with intellectual disabilities in whom the prevalence of epilepsy is higher, are often excluded from randomized controlled trials, and our study further assessed comparative effectiveness between this patient group and those with normal range intellect. We collected prospective data on 134 patients prescribed add-on BRV for epilepsy at a tertiary UK center over a 26-month period. All patients had previously received LEV. Sixty-three patients were on LEV at the start of the data collection period. Levetiracetam was withdrawn and switched to BRV in 39 patients because of inefficacy and 24 patients because of behavioral or psychiatric side effects. Seventy-three patients (54%) had a preexisting psychiatric or behavioral disorder compared with 64 patients (46%) without. The retention rate at last follow-up [mean: 11 months (0.5-26 months)] was 60% in the psychiatric/behavioral disorders group versus 67% in those without (p = 0.68). Forty-one patients had diagnosed intellectual disabilities. The retention rate was 66% in this group versus 62% in patients without intellectual disabilities (p = 0.36). The commonest treatment-emergent AEs were somnolence (26%), aggression (23%), and depression (9%). There were similar frequencies reported for these specific events across the groups. The proportion with a 50% responder rate was 29% in patients with focal epilepsy and 47% in patients with generalized and combined focal and generalized epilepsies. However, fifteen patients (11%) reported increased seizure activity leading to withdrawal of treatment. This study showed evidence that BRV may be an effective adjunctive therapy in patients with drug-resistant focal or generalized epilepsies whose seizures have previously not responded or tolerated LEV therapy. We demonstrated a higher incidence of treatment-emergent AEs leading to lower retention rates compared with previous studies across all patient groups. There were, however, no significant differences in tolerability between patients with preexisting psychiatric or behavioral comorbidities, or intellectual disability to those without.

Levetiracetam and brivaracetam: a review of evidence from clinical trials and clinical experience

Until the early 1990s, a limited number of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were available. Since then, a large variety of new AEDs have been developed and introduced, several of them offering new modes of action. One of these new AED families is described and reviewed in this article. Levetiracetam (LEV) and brivaracetam (BRV) are pyrrolidone derivate compounds binding at the presynaptic SV2A receptor site and are thus representative of AEDs with a unique mode of action. LEV was extensively investigated in randomized controlled trials and has a very promising efficacy both in focal and generalized epilepsies. Its pharmacokinetic profile is favorable and LEV does not undergo clinically relevant interactions. Adverse reactions comprise mainly asthenia, somnolence, and behavioral symptoms. It has now been established as a first-line antiepileptic drug. BRV has been recently introduced as an adjunct antiepileptic drug in focal epilepsy with a similarly promising pharmacokinetic profile and possibly increased tolerability concerning psychiatric adverse events. This review summarizes the essential preclinical and clinical data of LEV and BRV that is currently available and includes the experiences at a large tertiary referral epilepsy center.

Brivaracetam: a newly approved medication for epilepsy

Brivaracetam (BRV) in both the USA and EU was developed as a novel molecule for the adjunctive treatment of partial-onset (focal) seizures in patients ≥16 years of age and as of September 2017 was approved for use as monotherapy in the USA uniquely as an antiseizure medication that may be prescribed without a dose finding uptitration. This article reviews BRV's pharmacology, efficacy, safety and adverse event profiles, along with the relevant and noted regulatory hurdles in the USA and the EU. Available postmarketing data will also be summarized. Approximately 3000 patients were studied over about 9 years in the clinical trial program illustrating that BRV has efficacy at 50–200 mg/day with an acceptable adverse event profile.

Use of intravenous brivaracetam in status epilepticus: A multicenter registry

OBJECTIVE

The pharmacokinetics of brivaracetam (BRV), added to its effectiveness observed in animal models of status epilepticus (SE), makes this drug attractive for use in emergency situations. Our objective was to evaluate the use of intravenous BRV in a multicenter study.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter registry of SE cases treated with BRV was created. These patients were evaluated between January and December 2018 at seven hospitals in Spain. Demographic variables, SE characteristics, concomitant drugs, loading doses, and response to treatment were collected.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients were registered. The mean age was 56 ± 23.1 years, 51.2% were male, 29 had previous epilepsy, 24 (55.8%) had prominent motor symptoms, and 19 had nonconvulsive symptoms. Regarding the etiology, 19 (44.2%) were considered acute symptomatic, 16 (17.2%) remote symptomatic, four (9.3%) progressive symptomatic, and four (9.3%) cryptogenic. Regarding concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), 17 had previously received levetiracetam (LEV). In 14 patients, BRV was used early (first or second AED). The median loading dose was 100 mg (range = 50-400), and the weight-adjusted dose was 1.8 mg/kg (range = 0.4-7.3). BRV was effective in 54% (n = 23), and a response was observed in <6 hours in 13 patients. We observed a tendency for it to be more effective when administered earlier (P = 0.09), but there were no differences regarding SE type and the concomitant use of LEV. In those with the fastest responses, we observed that both the total administered dose (300 mg vs 100 mg, P = 0.008) and the weight-adjusted dose (3.85 mg vs 1.43 mg, P = 0.006) were significantly higher. The receiver operating characteristic curve showed that the best cutoff point for a faster response was 1.82 mg/kg.

SIGNIFICANCE

BRV is useful for the treatment of SE, even when patients are already being treated with LEV. The response rate seems higher when it is administered earlier and at higher doses (>1.82 mg/kg).

Brivaracetam efficacy and safety in focal epilepsy

Introduction: Brivaracetam (BRV) is an analog of levetiracetam (LEV) with 15-30 times greater affinity to SV2A and greater brain permeability than LEV. These properties have stimulated interest in its clinical trial data and post-marketing experience. Areas covered: The authors provide a background on epilepsy and its treatment, discuss the racetam family of antiepileptic drugs to which BRV belongs, and then discuss BRV properties and its efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of epilepsy. Expert opinion: While preclinical data suggest a broad spectrum of efficacy, BRV is only approved for focal epilepsy. The recommended starting dose is 100 mg per day, but in the absence of urgency, it may be prudent to start at 50 mg per day, considered the lowest effective dose. There was no added benefit when BRV was used adjunctively with LEV in clinical trials. However, post-marketing data suggest that some patients may experience improved seizure control when switching from LEV. Behavioral adverse effects seemed less common than with LEV, and most patients switched to BRV after experiencing behavioral adverse effects on LEV reported improvement. Prior or anticipated intolerability to LEV is the strongest indication for BRV in clinical practice.

[Brivaracetam in the treatment of patients with epilepsy]

The newest antiepileptic drug (AED) brivaracetam (Briviac, UCB Pharma) (BRV) was approved in the Russian Federation in 2017 as an adjuvant therapy for the treatment of partial seizures with/without secondary generalization in adults and adolescents over 16 years old with epilepsy. This review contains the data of BRV preclinical studies, pharmacokinetic profile and the results of comparative study of BRV and LEV. The results of main studies of efficacy and tolerability with pooled analysis as well as data from meta-analysis are presented. The authors present conclusions of the Russian leading epileptologists on perspectives of using BRV in different populations of epileptic patients. The use of BRV is able to provide long-term efficacy in terms of seizure control, is well tolerated, keeps quality of life and social activity of people with epilepsy.

BRIVA-LIFE-A multicenter retrospective study of the long-term use of brivaracetam in clinical practice

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate long-term effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam in clinical practice in patients with focal epilepsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a multicenter retrospective study. Patients aged ≥16 years were started on brivaracetam from November 2016 to June 2017 and followed over 1 year. Data were obtained from medical records at 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment initiation for evaluation of safety- and seizure-related outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 575 patients were included in analyses; most had been treated with ≥4 lifetime antiepileptic drugs. Target dosage was achieved by 30.6% of patients on the first day. Analysis of primary variables at 12 months revealed that mean reduction in seizure frequency was 36.0%, 39.7% of patients were ≥50% responders and 17.5% were seizure-free. Seizure-freedom was achieved by 37.5% of patients aged ≥65 years. Incidence of adverse events (AEs) and psychiatric AEs (PAEs) was 39.8% and 14.3%, respectively, and discontinuation due to these was 8.9% and 3.7%, respectively. Somnolence, irritability, and dizziness were the most frequently reported AEs. At baseline, 228 (39.7%) patients were being treated with levetiracetam; most switched to brivaracetam (dose ratio 1:10-15). Among those who switched because of PAEs (n = 53), 9 (17%) reported PAEs on brivaracetam, and 3 (5.7%) discontinued because of PAEs. Tolerability was not highly affected among patients with learning disability or psychiatric comorbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large population of patients with predominantly drug-resistant epilepsy, brivaracetam was effective and well-tolerated; no unexpected AEs occurred over 1 year, and the incidence of PAEs was lower compared with levetiracetam.

Brivaracetam in the treatment of epilepsy: a review of clinical trial data

Brivaracetam (BRV), an analog of levetiracetam (LEV), was discovered during a target-based rational drug discovery program that aimed to identify potent synaptic vesicle protein 2A (SV2A) ligands. Among the 12,000 compounds screened in vitro, BRV was found to have 15-30 times greater affinity for SV2A and faster brain permeability than LEV. Although preclinical and post-marketing studies suggest broad spectrum of efficacy, BRV is currently only approved as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy of focal-onset seizures in patients age 4 years and older. This review examines the use of BRV as add-on (5-200 mg/day) therapy for epilepsy with a particular emphasis on the six regulatory randomized clinical trialsinvolving 2399 participants. Participants receiving BRV add-on at doses of 50-200 mg/day were more likely to experience a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (pooled risk ratio [RR]) 1.79 with 95% CI of 1.51-2.12) than those receiving placebo. Participants receiving BRV were also more likely to attain seizure freedom (57 [3.3%] vs 4 [0.5%]; RR 4.74, 95% CI 2.00-11.25) than those receiving placebo. In addition, BRV demonstrated a favorable safety profile similar to placebo across all BRV doses. Treatment emergent adverse events significantly associated with BRV were irritability, fatigue, somnolence, and dizziness. Post-hoc analysis of regulatory trials, post-marketing studies, and indirect comparison meta-analyses demonstrated equivalent efficacy and better tolerability of BRV when compared to other antiseizure drugs. Further, these studies appear to suggest that behavioral adverse events are likely to be less frequent and less severe with BRV than LEV. Therefore, switching to BRV may be considered for patients who have seizure control with LEV, but who cannot tolerate its behavioral adverse effects. In this setting, immediate switch from LEV to BRV at a 10:1-15:1 ratio without titration is feasible. Further research is needed to examine the long-term tolerability and efficacy of BRV as well as its role in the treatment of other types of epilepsies, particularly dementia-related epilepsy and brain tumor-related epilepsy.

Brivaracetam in adults with drug-resistant epilepsy and psychiatric comorbidities

This is a case series of 25 patients with drug-resistant epilepsy and psychiatric comorbidities who started on brivaracetam (BRV) at St George's University Hospitals and Frimley Health in London. Median BRV dose was 150 mg for a median follow-up period of 8 months. Twenty had focal epilepsy, four had generalized epilepsies, and one had unclassified epilepsy; 76% had mood disorders (either depression or bipolar disorder), 12% intellectual disabilities with autism spectrum disorder and challenging behavior, and 12% psychoses. Forty percent of patients presented at least 50% seizure reduction, but none of them became seizure-free. A total of 44% of patients discontinued BRV, 20% because of adverse events, 20% because of inefficacy, and 4% because of both. Depression was reported by 8%, aggressive behavior by 8%, while 4% reported both. A total of 91.6% had received levetiracetam (LEV) before, in whom LEV was discontinued because of psychiatric adverse events (PAEs) in half. Seventy-seven percent of patients who developed PAEs with LEV did not do so on BRV suggesting that BRV is better tolerated than LEV in complex patients with psychiatric comorbidities and that the synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A (SV2A) protein modulation is unlikely to be implicated in LEV-related PAEs.

Postmarketing experience with brivaracetam in the treatment of focal epilepsy in children and adolescents

INTRODUCTION

This multicenter, retrospective study aimed to evaluate the efficiency, retention, safety, and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in children and adolescents with focal epilepsy.

METHODS

All patients aged ≤17 years with focal epilepsy who started BRV in 2016 and 2017 were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients (mean age: 12.2 years, range: 3-17 years, 56% female) were treated with BRV for 25 days to 24 months, with a total exposure time of 19.7 years. Overnight switch from levetiracetam (LEV) to BRV was performed in 20 patients at a median ratio of 10:1. Retention rate was 97% at three months, with only one patient reporting a discontinuation of BRV treatment. Further dropouts were reported in one patient after seven months and in two patients after one year of treatment, respectively. The median length of exposure to BRV was 180 days. Efficacy at three months was 47% (50% responder rate), with 10 patients (29%) reporting seizure freedom. A long-term 50% responder rate was present in 12 patients [35%; four patients seizure-free (12%)] for more than six months and in seven patients (21%; no seizure-free patients) for more than 12 months. Treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 12% of patients, with the most common being sedation, somnolence, loss or gain of appetite, and psychobehavioral adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of BRV in children and adolescents seems to be safe and well-tolerated. The results with 50% responder rate of 47% are consistent with those from randomized controlled trials and postmarketing studies in adults. An immediate switch from LEV to BRV at a ratio of 10:1 is feasible. The occurrence of psychobehavioral adverse events seems less prominent than under LEV and a switch to BRV can be considered in patients with LEV-induced adverse events.

Mechanisms Underlying Aggressive Behavior Induced by Antiepileptic Drugs: Focus on Topiramate, Levetiracetam, and Perampanel

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are effective against seizures, but their use is often limited by adverse effects, among them psychiatric and behavioral ones including aggressive behavior (AB). Knowledge of the incidence, risk factors, and the underlying mechanisms of AB induced by AEDs may help to facilitate management and reduce the risk of such side effects. The exact incidence of AB as an adverse effect of AEDs is difficult to estimate, but frequencies up to 16% have been reported. Primarily, levetiracetam (LEV), perampanel (PER), and topiramate (TPM), which have diverse mechanisms of action, have been associated with AB. Currently, there is no evidence for a specific pharmacological mechanism solely explaining the increased incidence of AB with LEV, PER, and TPM. Serotonin (5-HT) and GABA, and particularly glutamate (via the AMPA receptor), seem to play key roles. Other mechanisms involve hormones, epigenetics, and “alternative psychosis” and related phenomena. Increased individual susceptibility due to an underlying neurological and/or a mental health disorder may further explain why people with epilepsy are at an increased risk of AB when using AEDs. Remarkably, AB may occur with a delay of weeks or months after start of treatment. Information to patients, relatives, and caregivers, as well as sufficient clinical follow-up, is crucial, and there is a need for further research to understand the complex relationship between AED mechanisms of action and the induction/worsening of AB.

Anger Assessment in Patients Treated With Brivaracetam

OBJECTIVES

To assess state and trait anger, adjusted by epilepsy type, seizure control, anxiety-depression status and quality of life, in patients treated with brivaracetam (BRV) from an open study.

METHODS

We evaluated prospectively consecutive patients with partial onset seizures in an open-label study. Patients had 5 years or longer of epilepsy and were taking between 1 and 3 antiepileptic drugs. They were treated with BRV and compared with a control group selected from outpatients attending our epilepsy unit who met the following criteria: age ≥16 years and diagnosis of epilepsy with focal-onset seizures at least 1 year before inclusion in the study. The following tests were assessed: State-Trait Anger with the Expression Inventory-2, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory.

RESULTS

We recruited 39 patients, 17 treated with BRV and 22 with other drugs, including 13 with levetiracetam (LEV). Mean age was 47.3 years, 43.6% were men. Symptomatic cases, 66% and 52% temporal lobe epilepsy. Antiepileptic drug polytherapy was present in 82.1% of the cases (100% BRV vs 68.2% control group). Demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores were similar in both groups. When compared with the subgroup of LEV groups did not differ significantly on their Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores.

CONCLUSIONS

This small, open study suggests that BRV increases anger measures less than LEV in epilepsy patients. However, larger, blinded control studies are required to establish whether this apparent difference can be confirmed.

Behavioural changes in patients with intellectual disability treated with brivaracetam

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the tolerability and efficacy of brivaracetam (BRV) in residential patients at our epilepsy centre.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We assessed retrospectively 33 patients (14 females; mean age 38.2 years, with range 17-63 years) with intellectual disability (ID) and drug-resistant epilepsy using an industry-independent, non-interventional study design based on standardized daily seizure records. Mean seizure frequency was compared between the 3-month baseline period and subsequent 3-month treatment period. Evaluation, including calculation of retention rate, was carried out for the intervals 3-6 and 9-12 months after brivaracetam initiation. Responders were defined as having a 50% reduction in seizure frequency. The Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI) was applied to allow assessment of qualitative changes in seizure severity, and the Aggressive Behaviour Scale (ABS) gave further insights into challenging behaviour.

RESULTS

The responder rate was 19%, and one non-responder attained an improvement in CGI score. The retention rate after 12 months was 37%. Brivaracetam treatment was stopped because of adverse events (n = 3), lack of efficacy (n = 8) or both (n = 6). Thirteen patients experienced behavioural changes, with aggressive behaviour being the commonest effect. We also observed ataxia (n = 2), gastrointestinal disorder (n = 3) and sedation (n = 2). The ABS showed deterioration, or new occurrence, of aggressive behaviour in 13 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Brivaracetam seems to be effective in a small number of patients suffering from difficult-to-treat epilepsy and intellectual disability. Challenging behaviour was documented in a relevant number of patients, with psychiatric illness being a risk factor for this.

Efficacy, Retention, and Tolerability of Brivaracetam in Patients With Epileptic Encephalopathies: A Multicenter Cohort Study From Germany

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in a severely drug refractory cohort of patients with epileptic encephalopathies (EE).

Method: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study recruiting all patients treated with EE who began treatment with BRV in an enrolling epilepsy center between 2016 and 2017.

Results: Forty-four patients (27 male [61%], mean age 29 years, range 6 to 62) were treated with BRV. The retention rate was 65% at 3 months, 52% at 6 months and 41% at 12 months. A mean retention time of 5 months resulted in a cumulative exposure to BRV of 310 months. Three patients were seizure free during the baseline. At 3 months, 20 (45%, 20/44 as per intention-to-treat analysis considering all patients that started BRV including three who were seizure free during baseline) were either seizure free (n = 4; 9%, three of them already seizure-free at baseline) or reported at least 25% (n = 4; 9%) or 50% (n = 12; 27%) reduction in seizures. An increase in seizure frequency was reported in two (5%) patients, while there was no change in the seizure frequency of the other patients. A 50% long-term responder rate was apparent in 19 patients (43%), with two (5%) free from seizures for more than six months and in nine patients (20%, with one [2 %] free from seizures) for more than 12 months. Treatment-emergent adverse events were predominantly of psychobehavioural nature and were observed in 16%.

Significance: In this retrospective analysis the rate of patients with a 50% seizure reduction under BRV proofed to be similar to those seen in regulatory trials for focal epilepsies. BRV appears to be safe and relatively well tolerated in EE and might be considered in patients with psychobehavioral adverse events while on levetiracetam.

Use of brivaracetam in genetic generalized epilepsies and for acute, intravenous treatment of absence status epilepticus

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate effectiveness, retention, and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in genetic generalized epilepsies (GGE) in clinical practice.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective cohort study recruiting all patients that started BRV in 2016 and 2017.

RESULTS

A total of 61 patients (mean age = 29.8, range = 9-90 years, 41 female [67%]) were treated with BRV. They were difficult to control, with 2.4 failed antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in the past, taking 1.9 AEDs on average at baseline. The length of exposure to BRV ranged from 7 days to 24 months, with a mean retention time of 7.9 months, resulting in a total exposure time to BRV of 483 months. The retention rate was 82% at 3 months and 69% at 6 months. Efficacy at 3 months was 36% (50% responder rate), with 25% seizure-free for 3 months. Patients with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy showed a responder rate of 60%, with 40% being free of any seizures. Long-term 50% responder rate was present in 17 patients (28%; 11 seizure-free [18%]) for >6 months and in 14 patients (23%; 10 seizure-free [16%]) for >12 months. Treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 26% of the patients, with the most common being somnolence, ataxia, and psychobehavioral adverse events. Use of intravenous BRV with bolus injection of 200-300 mg in two females with absence status epilepticus was well tolerated, but did not result in cessation of status epilepticus.

SIGNIFICANCE

Use of BRV in GGE is well tolerated, and 50% responder rates are similar to those observed in the regulatory trials for focal epilepsies. An immediate switch from levetiracetam (LEV) to BRV at a ratio of 15:1 is feasible. The occurrence of psychobehavioral adverse events seems less prominent than under LEV, and a switch to BRV can be considered in patients with LEV-induced adverse events.

Recent advances in epilepsy management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recent advances in our understanding of seizure generation have resulted in modified recommendations for when seizure treatment should be initiated, revisions to our definition of status epilepticus, and new pharmacological and neuromodulatory therapies. The goal of this review is to provide the anesthesiologist with an overview of the advancements they are most likely to encounter while providing clinical care.

RECENT FINDINGS

There have been recent modifications to seizure definitions and treatment recommendations. These include the idea that treatment with antiepileptic therapy should be initiated after the first unprovoked seizure in individuals who are at high risk for another seizure, and that the idea that status epilepticus should be thought of as a two-phase process, related to an initial phase after which intervention should be started, and a second phase after which time risk of long-term sequelae is increased. Additionally, several new therapies have become available that have novel mechanisms of action, which are more efficacious and have fewer side-effects.

SUMMARY

As knowledge about mechanisms of seizure generation has improved, there has been a concurrent evolution in our thinking about seizure-related definitions, and indications for initiation of treatment. Several next generation drug therapies with more specific targets have also become available. Taken together, there have been significant improvements in care options.

Brivaracetam in the Treatment of Patients with Epilepsy-First Clinical Experiences

Objectives

To assess first clinical experiences with brivaracetam (BRV) in the treatment of epilepsies.

Methods

Data on patients treated with BRV from February to December 2016 and with at least one clinical follow-up were collected from electronic patient records. Data on safety and efficacy were evaluated retrospectively.

Results

In total, 93 patients were analyzed; 12 (12.9%) received BRV in monotherapy. The mean duration to follow-up was 4.85 months (MD = 4 months; SD = 3.63). Fifty-seven patients had more than one seizure per month at baseline and had a follow-up of more than 4 weeks; the rate of ≥50% responders was 35.1% (n = 20) in this group, of which five (8.8%) patients were newly seizure-free. In 50.5% (47/93), patients were switched from levetiracetam (LEV) to BRV, of which 43 (46.2%) were switched immediately. Adverse events (AE) occurred in 39.8%, with 22.6% experiencing behavioral and 25.8% experiencing non-behavioral AE. LEV-related AE (LEV-AE) were significantly reduced by switching to BRV. The discontinuation of BRV was reported in 26/93 patients (28%); 10 of those were switched back to LEV with an observed reduction of AE in 70%. For clinical reasons, 12 patients received BRV in monotherapy, 75% were seizure–free, and previous LEV-AE improved in 6/9 patients. BRV-related AE occurred in 5/12 cases, and five patients discontinued BRV.

Conclusion

BRV seems to be a safe, easy, and effective option in the treatment of patients with epilepsy, especially in the treatment of patients who have psychiatric comorbidities and might not be good candidates for LEV treatment. BRV broadens the therapeutic spectrum and facilitates personalized treatment.

Favorable adverse effect profile of brivaracetam vs levetiracetam in a preclinical model

Levetiracetam (LEV), and its newer selective analog brivaracetam (BRV), are two seizure medications that share an innovative mechanism of action targeting the Synaptic Vesicle Protein 2A (SV2A), altering neurotransmitter release and decreasing seizure frequency. Behavioral changes are the most significant adverse effects reported by patients taking LEV. We hypothesize that BRV, the more potent SV2A analog, could exert less behavioral side effects, as it requires lower doses than LEV. Using Kainic Acid (KA)-treated and control rats, we measured adverse behavioral effect profiles of LEV, BRV, or Saline, on social and nonsocial behaviors. Our data indicate that both tested drugs had no effect on locomotion, anxiety levels, fear learning, depression-like behavior, and memory retention in rats. However, when considering social interactions, we first confirmed the epilepsy-induced strong increase in aggressive behaviors and specific hippocampal neuronal loss. We furthermore observed, in Sham rats, that LEV-treated animals were 2 times faster to attack at first encounter, had 5 times more aggressive behaviors, and had significantly less social behaviors than control rats. In all circumstances, BRV rats behaved like Saline rats, suggesting that BRV treatment in rats leads to significantly less aggressive behaviors than LEV treatment at the doses used, while there are limited differential effects between these two drugs on other types of behaviors. Since increased aggressiveness has been reported in patients well controlled on LEV, this study indicates based on our findings, that BRV could represent an effective alternative to LEV to limit aggressiveness problems due to this antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy.

A review of the pharmacology and clinical efficacy of brivaracetam

Brivaracetam (BRV; Briviact) is a new antiepileptic drug (AED) approved for adjunctive treatment of focal (partial-onset) seizures in adults. BRV is a selective, high-affinity ligand for synaptic vesicle 2A (SV2A) with 15- to 30-fold higher affinity than levetiracetam, the first AED acting on SV2A. It has high lipid solubility and rapid brain penetration, with engagement of the target molecule, SV2A, within minutes of administration. BRV has potent broad-spectrum antiepileptic activity in animal models. Phase I studies indicated BRV was well tolerated and showed a favorable pharmacokinetic profile over a wide dose range following single (10-1,000 mg) and multiple (200-800 mg/day) oral dosing. Three pivotal Phase III studies have demonstrated promising efficacy and a good safety and tolerability profile across doses of 50-200 mg/day in the adjunctive treatment of refractory focal seizures. Long-term data indicate that the response to BRV is sustained, with good tolerability and retention rate. BRV is highly effective in patients experiencing secondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Safety data to date suggest a favorable psychiatric adverse effect profile in controlled studies, although limited postmarketing data are available. BRV is easy to use, with no titration and little drug-drug interaction. It can be initiated at target dose with no titration. Efficacy is seen on day 1 of oral use in a significant percentage of patients. Intravenous administration in a 2-minute bolus and 15-minute infusion is well tolerated. Here, we review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and clinical data of BRV.

When adverse effects are seen as desirable: Abuse potential of the newer generation antiepileptic drugs

There has been growing recognition of the possible abuse potential of newer generation antiepileptic drugs, and several of these agents have been categorized as controlled substances in the United States. To properly schedule a new medication, the abuse potential, or the potential for a drug to be used for its nonmedical positive subjective effects, must be determined. Performing a human abuse potential study is one step in the overall abuse potential assessment. These studies analyze the abuse potential of a new drug in a very specific population of known recreational drug users. Studying the test drug in this population enables a more meaningful assessment of abuse, and likely represents the population most probable to abuse. In these double-blind, single-dose, active and placebo controlled studies subjects may report their subjective liking, estimated street value, and rate euphoric or depressive sensations of the test drug compared with placebo and scheduled active comparators with a known abuse potential. In order to provide an enhanced understanding of the abuse potential assessment and how it relates to controlled substance scheduling, this review will examine the human abuse potential studies of perampanel, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, and brivaracetam.

Brivaracetam: a novel antiepileptic drug for focal-onset seizures

Brivaracetam (BRV), the n-propyl analogue of levetiracetam (LEV), is the latest antiepileptic drug (AED) to be licensed in Europe and the USA for the adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization in patients aged 16 years or older. Like LEV, BRV binds to synaptic vesicle protein 2A (SV2A), but BRV has more selective binding and a 15- to 30-fold higher binding affinity than LEV. BRV is more effective than LEV in slowing synaptic vesicle mobilization and the two AEDs may act at different binding sites or interact with different conformational states of the SV2A protein. In animal models, BRV provides protection against focal and secondary generalized seizures and has significant anticonvulsant effects in genetic models of epilepsy. The drug undergoes first-order pharmacokinetics with an elimination half-life of 7-8 h. Although BRV is metabolized extensively, the main circulating compound is unchanged BRV. Around 95% of metabolites undergo renal elimination. No dose reduction is required in renal impairment, but it is recommended that the daily dose is reduced by one-third in hepatic dysfunction that may prolong half-life. BRV has a low potential for drug interactions. The efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive BRV in adults with focal-onset seizures have been explored in six randomized, placebo-controlled studies. These showed significant efficacy outcomes for doses of 50-200 mg/day. The most common adverse events reported were headache, somnolence, dizziness, fatigue and nausea. Patients who develop psychiatric symptoms with LEV appear to be at risk of similar side effects with BRV, although preliminary data suggest that these issues are likely to be less frequent and perhaps less severe. As with all AEDs, a low starting dose and slow titration schedule help to minimize side effects and optimize seizure control and thereby quality of life.

Comparing Safety and Efficacy of "Third-Generation" Antiepileptic Drugs: Long-Term Extension and Post-marketing Treatment

Four "third-generation" antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were approved for adjunctive treatment of refractory focal onset seizures during the past 10 years. Long-term efficacy and safety of the drugs were demonstrated in large extension studies and in reports of subgroups of patients not studied in pivotal trials. Reviewing extension study and post-marketing outcome series for the four newer AEDs-lacosamide, perampanel, eslicarbazepine acetate and brivaracetam-can guide clinicians in treating and monitoring patients. AED extension studies evaluate treatment retention, drug tolerability, and drug safety during individualized treatment with flexible dosing and thus provide information not available in rigid pivotal trials. Patient retention in the studies ranged from 75 to 80% at 1 year and from 36 to 68% at 2-year treatment intervals. Safety findings were generally similar to those of pivotal trials, with no major safety risks identified and with several specific adverse drug effects, such as hyponatremia, reported. The third-generation AEDs, some through new mechanisms and others with improved tolerability compared to related AEDs, provide new options in efficacy and tolerability.

Psychiatric and behavioral side effects of antiepileptic drugs in adults with epilepsy

PURPOSE

Psychiatric and behavioral side effects (PBSEs) are common, undesirable effects associated with antiepileptic drug (AED) use. The objective of the study was to compare the PBSE profiles of older and newer AEDs in a large specialty practice-based sample of patients diagnosed with epilepsy.

METHODS

As part of the Columbia and Yale AED Database Project, we reviewed patient records including demographics, medical history, AED use, and side effects for 4085 adult patients (age: 18 years) newly started on an AED regimen. Psychiatric and behavioral side effects were determined by patient or physician report in the medical record, which included depressive mood, psychosis, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, irritability, aggression, and tantrum. Significant non-AED predictors of PBSE rate were first determined from 83 variables using logistic regression. Predictors were then controlled for in the comparison analysis of the rate of PBSEs and intolerable PBSEs (PBSEs that led to dosage reduction or discontinuation) between 18 AEDs.

RESULTS

Psychiatric and behavioral side effects occurred in 17.2% of patients and led to intolerability in 13.8% of patients. History of psychiatric condition(s), secondary generalized seizures, absence seizures, and intractable epilepsy were associated with increased incidence of PBSE. Levetiracetam (LEV) had the greatest PBSE rate (22.1%). This was statistically significant when compared with the aggregate of the other AEDs (P<0.001, OR=6.87). Levetiracetam was also significantly (P<0.001) associated with higher intolerability rate (17.7%), dose decreased rate (9.4%), and complete cessation rate (8.3%), when compared with the aggregate of the other AEDs. Zonisamide (ZNS) was also significantly associated with a higher rate of PBSE (9.7%) and IPBSE (7.9%, all P<0.001). On the other hand, carbamazepine (CBZ), clobazam (CLB), gabapentin (GBP), lamotrigine (LTG), oxcarbazepine (OXC), phenytoin (PHT), and valproate (VPA) were significantly associated with a decreased PBSE rates (P<0.001). Carbamazepine, GBP, LTG, PHT, and VPA were also associated with lower IPBSE rates when compared individually with the aggregate of other AEDs. All other AEDs were found to have intermediate rates that were not either increased or decreased compared with other AEDs. When each AED was compared to LTG, only CBZ had a significantly lower PBSE rate. The main limitations of this study were that the study design was retrospective and not blinded, and the AEDs were not randomly assigned to patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychiatric and behavioral side effects occur more frequently in patients taking LEV and ZNS than any other AED and led to higher rates of intolerability. Lower PBSE rates were seen in patients taking CBZ, CLB, GBP, LTG, OXC, PHT, and VPA. Our findings may help facilitate the AED selection process.

Brivaracetam does not modulate ionotropic channels activated by glutamate, γ-aminobutyric acid, and glycine in hippocampal neurons

Brivaracetam (BRV) is a selective, high-affinity ligand for synaptic vesicle protein 2A (SV2A), recently approved as adjunctive treatment for drug-refractory partial-onset seizures in adults. BRV binds SV2A with higher affinity than levetiracetam (LEV), and was shown to have a differential interaction with SV2A. Because LEV was reported to interact with multiple excitatory and inhibitory ligand-gated ion channels and that may impact its pharmacological profile, we were interested in determining whether BRV directly modulates inhibitory and excitatory ionotropic receptors in central neurons. Voltage-clamp experiments were performed in primary cultures of mouse hippocampal neurons. At a supratherapeutic concentration of 100 μm, BRV was devoid of any direct effect on currents gated by γ-aminobutyric acidergic type A, glycine, kainate, N-methyl-d-aspartate, and α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid. Similarly to LEV, BRV reveals a potent ability to oppose the action of negative modulators on the inhibitory receptors. In conclusion, these results show that BRV contrasts with LEV by not displaying any direct action on inhibitory or excitatory postsynaptic ligand-gated receptors at therapeutic concentrations and thereby support BRV's role as a selective SV2A ligand. These findings add further evidence to the validity of SV2A as a relevant antiepileptic drug target and emphasize the potential for exploring further presynaptic mechanisms as a novel approach to antiepileptic drug discovery.

Pharmacological Treatment of Drug-Resistant Epilepsy in Adults: a Practical Guide

More than 30 % of adults with epilepsy do not fully control on the currently available antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). For these and many other patients, combinations of agents, often possessing different mechanisms of actions, are employed with the aim of achieving seizure freedom or the best available prognosis in terms of reduced seizure numbers and severity. This review discusses my own approach to optimising outcomes in as many of these patients as possible by adjusting the drug burden using a combination of two, three or sometimes four or more AEDs. Modes of drug action are reviewed and practical strategies for treating different patients with drug-resistant epilepsy have been explored. Only for sodium valproate with lamotrigine is there good evidence of synergism. The final part of this practical paper consists of six individual illustrative cases with appropriate comments.

Evaluation of brivaracetam: a new drug to treat epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

High prevalence of therapy-resistant epilepsy demands development of anticonvulsants with new mechanisms of action. Brivaracetam is an analogue of levetiracetam which binds to the synaptic vesicle protein 2A (SV2A) and decreases release of excitatory neurotransmitters. Areas covered: Relevant published studies were searched for by predefined strategy in MEDLINE, EBSCO and SCINDEKS electronic databases. Brivaracetam is effective as adjunctive therapy for uncontrolled partial-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization in patients 16 years and older with epilepsy. It reduces baseline-adjusted focal seizure frequency per week from 7.3 to 12.8% over placebo. Adverse events rate in patients with brivaracetam is not higher than in patients with placebo. Expert opinion: Brivaracetam is an important step forward in the treatment of therapy-resistant partial-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization. Its development was systematic and targeted. Due to its efficacy and excellent safety profile, it is likely that brivaracetam will be often prescribed. In future, efficacy and safety of brivaracetam should be tested in monotherapy settings and also in the first-line therapy of partial-onset seizures.

Postmarketing experience with brivaracetam in the treatment of epilepsies: A multicenter cohort study from Germany

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate factors predicting efficacy, retention, and tolerability of add-on brivaracetam (BRV) in clinical practice.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective cohort study recruiting all patients who started BRV between February and November 2016 with observation time between 3 and 12 months.

RESULTS

Of a total of 262 patients (mean age 40, range 5-81 years, 129 male) treated with BRV, 227 (87%) were diagnosed to have focal, 19 (7%) idiopathic generalized and 8 (3%) symptomatic generalized epilepsy, whereas 8 (3%) were unclassified. The length of exposure to BRV ranged from 1 day to 12 months, with a median retention time of 6.1 months, resulting in a total exposure time to BRV of 1,504 months. The retention rate was 79.4% at 3 months and 75.8% at 6 months. Efficacy at 3 months was 41.2% (50% responder rate) with 14.9% seizure-free for 3 months and, at 6 months, 40.5% with 15.3% seizure-free. Treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 37.8% of the patients, with the most common being somnolence, dizziness, and behavioral adverse events (BAEs). BAE that presented under previous levetiracetam (LEV) treatment improved upon switch to BRV in 57.1% (20/35) and LEV-induced somnolence improved in 70.8% (17/24). Patients with BAE on LEV were more likely to develop BAE on BRV (odds ratio [OR] 3.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53-7.95).

SIGNIFICANCE

BRV in broad clinical postmarketing use is a well-tolerated anticonvulsant drug with 50% responder rates, similar to those observed in the regulatory trials, even though 90% of the patients included had previously been exposed to LEV. An immediate switch from LEV to BRV at a ratio of 10:1 to 15:1 is feasible. The only independent significant predictor of efficacy was the start of BRV in patients not currently taking LEV. The occurrence of BAE during previous LEV exposure predicted poor psychobehavioral tolerability of BRV treatment. A switch to BRV can be considered in patients with LEV-induced BAE.

Treatment of refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus with brivaracetam: A cohort study from two German university hospitals

PURPOSE

We aimed to ascertain the possible use of brivaracetam (BRV) as an option for treatment of status epilepticus (SE).

METHODS

A review of medical records was carried out to detect BRV administration in SE patients treated in Frankfurt and Greifswald during the period February 2016 to January 2017. The primary outcome question concerned SE resolution after BRV initiation.

RESULTS

During that period, BRV was started with eleven adult patients with SE. Five of these were female, and the median age was 64 (interquartile range [IQR] 21years). The median SE duration before BRV initiation was 5days (IQR 9days); the median number of previous anticonvulsants used was 4 (IQR 5). Initial BRV doses ranged between 50mg and 400mg (median 100mg), titrated to a daily dose of 100 to 400mg (median 200mg). There was a cessation of SE in the first 24h of BRV in three patients (27%). While taking BRV, no serious side effects were seen.

CONCLUSION

Based on these cases and previous data from animal experiments, BRV may prove useful in SE treatment, and trials would be warranted to examine BRV's efficacy in treating SE and how this efficacy might be influenced by co-administration with levetiracetam.

New developments in the management of partial-onset epilepsy: role of brivaracetam

Currently, a number of novel anticonvulsant drugs, the so-called third generation, are in various stages of development. Several of them are already available or in ongoing clinical trials. These new compounds should take advantage of new insights into the basic pathophysiology of epileptogenesis, drug metabolism and drug interactions. Many of them still need to be further evaluated mainly in real-world observational trials and registries. Among newer anticonvulsant drugs for partial-onset seizures (POSs), rufinamide, lacosamide, eslicarbazepine and perampanel are those new treatment options for which more substantial clinical evidence is currently available, both in adults and, to some extent, in children. Among the newest anticonvulsant drugs, brivaracetam, a high-affinity synaptic vesicle protein 2A ligand, reported to be 10- to 30-fold more potent than levetiracetam, is highly effective in a broad range of experimental models of focal and generalized seizures. Unlike levetiracetam, brivaracetam does not inhibit high-voltage Ca2+ channels and AMPA receptors and appears to inhibit neuronal voltage-gated sodium channels playing a role as a partial antagonist. Brivaracetam has a linear pharmacokinetic profile, is extensively metabolized and is excreted by urine (only 8%-11% unchanged). It does not seem to influence the pharmacokinetics of other antiepileptic drugs. It was approved in the European Union in January 2016 and in the US in February 2016 as an adjunctive therapy for the treatment of POS in patients older than 16 years of age. To date, its clinical efficacy as adjunctive antiepileptic treatment in adults with refractory POS at doses between 50 and 200 mg daily has been extensively assessed in two Phase IIb and four Phase III randomized controlled studies. Long-term extension studies show sustained efficacy of brivaracetam. Overall, the drug is generally well tolerated with only mild-to-moderate side effects. This is true also by intravenous route. Brivaracetam has not yet been evaluated as monotherapy or in comparison with other new anticonvulsant drugs.

Efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam in patients with prior antiepileptic drug exposure: A post-hoc study

Brivaracetam (BRV), a selective, high-affinity ligand for synaptic vesicle protein 2A, is a new antiepileptic drug (AED) for adjunctive treatment of focal (partial-onset) seizures in adults with epilepsy. This post-hoc analysis was conducted to explore the efficacy of adjunctive BRV in patients with prior levetiracetam (LEV) exposure and whether changes in efficacy were related to the similar mechanism of action of these two drugs. Data were pooled from three Phase III studies (NCT00490035; NCT00464269; NCT01261325) of adults with focal seizures taking 1-2 AEDs who received placebo or BRV 50-200mg/day without titration over a 12-week treatment period. Patients taking concomitant LEV at enrollment were excluded from this analysis. Patients were categorized by their status of prior exposure to LEV, carbamazepine (CBZ), topiramate (TPM), or lamotrigine (LTG), to investigate any consistent trend towards reduced response in AED-exposed subgroups compared to AED-naïve subgroups, regardless of the mechanism of action. Study completion rates, percent reduction from baseline in focal seizure frequency over placebo, ≥50% responder rates, and tolerability were evaluated for each subgroup. A total of 1160 patients were investigated. Study completion rates were similar in the AED-exposed subgroups and AED-naïve subgroups. In subgroups with (531 patients) or without (629 patients) prior LEV exposure, ≥50% responder rates for each dose of BRV compared with placebo were generally higher among the LEV-naïve subgroups than the previously LEV-exposed subgroups. LEV-exposed subgroups receiving BRV doses ≥50mg/day showed greater ≥50% responder rates than those receiving placebo. Similar results were observed for CBZ, TPM, and LTG. Previous treatment failure with commonly prescribed AEDs (LEV, CBZ, TPM, or LTG) is associated with a reduced response to BRV irrespective of the mechanism of action. Hence, this post-hoc analysis indicates that previous treatment failure with LEV does not preclude the use of BRV in patients with epilepsy.

Tolerability and Safety of Commonly Used Antiepileptic Drugs in Adolescents and Adults: A Clinician's Overview

This paper discusses the issues surrounding the tolerability and safety of the commonly used antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in adolescents and adults. The content includes dose-related adverse effects, idiosyncratic reactions, behavioural and psychiatric comorbidities, chronic problems, enzyme induction and teratogenesis. Twenty-one AEDs are discussed in chronological order of their introduction into the UK, starting with phenobarbital and ending with brivaracetam. Wherever possible, advice is given on anticipating, recognising and managing these issues and thereby improving the lives of people with epilepsy, most of whom will need to take one or more of these agents for life. Avoidance of side effects will increase the possibility of achieving and maintaining long-term seizure freedom. Alternatively, adverse events from AEDs will substantially reduce quality of life and often result in higher healthcare costs.