Brivaracetam add-on therapy for drug-resistant epilepsy

Value of drug level concentrations of brivaracetam, lacosamide, and perampanel in care of people with epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine whether clinical efficacy and reported adverse effects (AEs) of the newer antiseizure medications (ASMs) brivaracetam (BRV), lacosamide (LCM), and perampanel (PER) have been associated with plasma levels of these ASMs. We also investigated whether plasma levels outside the reference range has led to dose adjustments.

METHODS

Plasma levels of 300 people with epilepsy (PWE) seen at our tertiary epilepsy center were determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. PWE received BRV (n = 100), LCM (n = 100), or PER (n = 100), in most cases in polytherapy. Demographic and clinical data were retrospectively analyzed and related to plasma levels. Clinical efficacy of BRV, LCM, or PER was assessed retrospectively by comparing seizure frequency at the time of current blood draw with seizure frequency at the time of first administration. AEs were also recorded and, if reported, compared retrospectively with the time of first administration.

RESULTS

No significant associations were found between plasma levels of BRV, LCM, or PER and seizure freedom (BRV, p = 1.000; LCM, p = .243; PER, p = .113) or responder status (BRV, p = .118; LCM, p = .478; PER, p = .069) at presentation. There was also no pattern between plasma levels and the occurrence of AEs. In the majority of cases, drug levels outside the reference ranges have not led to adjustments in the daily doses of BRV (93.5%), LCM (93.9%), or PER (89.1%).

SIGNIFICANCE

Plasma levels at a given time point did not allow conclusions to be drawn about seizure control or the occurrence of AEs. Our findings indicate that efficacy and tolerability cannot be predicted based on averaged data from a single plasma measurement due to high interindividual variability. Instead, individual reference values should be established when sufficient clinical data are available, in line with the 2008 International League Against Epilepsy position paper on therapeutic drug monitoring.

Seizures in palliative medicine: brivaracetam

Seizures occur in around 13% of patients with cancer and can be distressing for family members to witness. In those unable to manage regular antiepileptic medications, midazolam can be administered subcutaneously using a syringe driver, but this may cause sedation. Brivaracetam is a newer drug licensed as an adjunctive therapy in the treatment of partial-onset seizures with or without secondary generalisation and for restricted use in those with refractory epilepsy. It is associated with fewer behavioural or psychiatric side effects than levetiracetam, has a very low incidence of drug interactions and the maximal dose can be accommodated in a single syringe driver. We present three cases from 2019 to 2020 where subcutaneous brivaracetam has been successfully used in a Specialist Inpatient Palliative Care setting to manage seizures. Brivaracetam dosing is 1:1 conversion from oral:subcutaneous, with syringe driver doses ranging from 150 mg to 300 mg/24 hours being successfully used, with no adverse effects observed.

Phosphoglycerate kinase (PGK) 1 succinylation modulates epileptic seizures and the blood-brain barrier

Epilepsy is the most common chronic disorder in the nervous system, mainly characterized by recurrent, periodic, unpredictable seizures. Post-translational modifications (PTMs) are important protein functional regulators that regulate various physiological and pathological processes. It is significant for cell activity, stability, protein folding, and localization. Phosphoglycerate kinase (PGK) 1 has traditionally been studied as an important adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-generating enzyme of the glycolytic pathway. PGK1 catalyzes the reversible transfer of a phosphoryl group from 1, 3-bisphosphoglycerate (1, 3-BPG) to ADP, producing 3-phosphoglycerate (3-PG) and ATP. In addition to cell metabolism regulation, PGK1 is involved in multiple biological activities, including angiogenesis, autophagy, and DNA repair. However, the exact role of PGK1 succinylation in epilepsy has not been thoroughly investigated. The expression of PGK1 succinylation was analyzed by Immunoprecipitation. Western blots were used to assess the expression of PGK1, angiostatin, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in a rat model of lithium-pilocarpine-induced acute epilepsy. Behavioral experiments were performed in a rat model of lithium-pilocarpine-induced acute epilepsy. ELISA method was used to measure the level of S100β in serum brain biomarkers' integrity of the blood-brain barrier. The expression of the succinylation of PGK1 was decreased in a rat model of lithium-pilocarpine-induced acute epilepsy compared with the normal rats in the hippocampus. Interestingly, the lysine 15 (K15), and the arginine (R) variants of lentivirus increased the susceptibility in a rat model of lithium-pilocarpine-induced acute epilepsy, and the K15 the glutamate (E) variants, had the opposite effect. In addition, the succinylation of PGK1 at K15 affected the expression of PGK1 succinylation but not the expression of PGK1total protein. Furthermore, the study found that the succinylation of PGK1 at K15 may affect the level of angiostatin and VEGF in the hippocampus, which also affects the level of S100β in serum. In conclusion, the mutation of the K15 site of PGK1 may alter the expression of the succinylation of PGK1 and then affect the integrity of the blood-brain barrier through the angiostatin / VEGF pathway altering the activity of epilepsy, which may be one of the new mechanisms of treatment strategies.

Psychobehavioural and Cognitive Adverse Events of Anti-Seizure Medications for the Treatment of Developmental and Epileptic Encephalopathies

The developmental and epileptic encephalopathies encompass a group of rare syndromes characterised by severe drug-resistant epilepsy with onset in childhood and significant neurodevelopmental comorbidities. The latter include intellectual disability, developmental delay, behavioural problems including attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder, psychiatric problems including anxiety and depression, speech impairment and sleep problems. Classical examples of developmental and epileptic encephalopathies include Dravet syndrome, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and tuberous sclerosis complex. The mainstay of treatment is with multiple anti-seizure medications (ASMs); however, the ASMs themselves can be associated with psychobehavioural adverse events, and effects (negative or positive) on cognition and sleep. We have performed a targeted literature review of ASMs commonly used in the treatment of developmental and epileptic encephalopathies to discuss the latest evidence on their effects on behaviour, mood, cognition, sedation and sleep. The ASMs include valproate (VPA), clobazam, topiramate (TPM), cannabidiol (CBD), fenfluramine (FFA), levetiracetam (LEV), brivaracetam (BRV), zonisamide (ZNS), perampanel (PER), ethosuximide, stiripentol, lamotrigine (LTG), rufinamide, vigabatrin, lacosamide (LCM) and everolimus. Bromide, felbamate and other sodium channel ASMs are discussed briefly. Overall, the current evidence suggest that LEV, PER and to a lesser extent BRV are associated with psychobehavioural adverse events including aggressiveness and irritability; TPM and to a lesser extent ZNS are associated with language impairment and cognitive dulling/memory problems. Patients with a history of behavioural and psychiatric comorbidities may be more at risk of developing psychobehavioural adverse events. Topiramate and ZNS may be associated with negative effects in some aspects of cognition; CBD, FFA, LEV, BRV and LTG may have some positive effects, while the remaining ASMs do not appear to have a detrimental effect. All the ASMs are associated with sedation to a certain extent, which is pronounced during uptitration. Cannabidiol, PER and pregabalin may be associated with improvements in sleep, LTG is associated with insomnia, while VPA, TPM, LEV, ZNS and LCM do not appear to have detrimental effects. There was variability in the extent of evidence for each ASM: for many first-generation and some second-generation ASMs, there is scant documented evidence; however, their extensive use suggests favourable tolerability and safety (e.g. VPA); second-generation and some third-generation ASMs tend to have the most robust evidence documented over several years of use (TPM, LEV, PER, ZNS, BRV), while evidence is still being generated for newer ASMs such as CBD and FFA. Finally, we discuss how a variety of factors can affect mood, behaviour and cognition, and untangling the associations between the effects of the underlying syndrome and those of the ASMs can be challenging. In particular, there is enormous heterogeneity in cognitive, behavioural and developmental impairments that is complex and can change naturally over time; there is a lack of standardised instruments for evaluating these outcomes in developmental and epileptic encephalopathies, with a reliance on subjective evaluations by proxy (caregivers); and treatment regimes are complex involving multiple ASMs as well as other drugs.

Brivaracetam add-on therapy for drug-resistant epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders. It is estimated that up to 30% of individuals with epilepsy continue to have epileptic seizures despite treatment with an antiepileptic drug. These patients are classified as drug-resistant and require treatment with a combination of multiple antiepileptic drugs. Brivaracetam is a third-generation antiepileptic drug that is a high-affinity ligand for synaptic vesicle protein 2A. In this review we investigated the use of brivaracetam as add-on therapy for epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of brivaracetam when used as add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update we searched the following databases on 7 September 2021: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web); MEDLINE (Ovid) 1946 to 3 September 2021. CRS Web includes randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for parallel-group RCTs that recruited people of any age with drug-resistant epilepsy. We accepted studies with any level of blinding (double-blind, single-blind, or unblinded).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

In accordance with standard Cochrane methodological procedures, two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion before evaluating trial quality and extracting relevant data. The primary outcome to be assessed was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. Secondary outcomes were: seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal for any reason, treatment withdrawal due to adverse events, the proportion of participants who experienced any adverse events, and drug interactions. We used an intention-to-treat population for all primary analyses, and presented results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any new studies for this update, therefore the results and conclusions of the review are unchanged. The previous review included six studies involving a total of 2411 participants. Only one study included participants with both focal and generalised onset seizures; the other five trials included participants with focal onset seizures only. Study participants were aged 16 to 80 years. Treatment periods ranged from 7 to 16 weeks. We judged two studies to have low risk of bias and four to have unclear risk of bias. Details on the method used for allocation concealment and how blinding was maintained were insufficient in one study each. One study did not report all outcomes prespecified in the trial protocol, and there were discrepancies in reporting in a further study. Participants receiving brivaracetam add-on were more likely to experience a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency than those receiving placebo (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.14; 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants receiving brivaracetam were more likely to attain seizure freedom; however, the evidence is of low certainty (RR 5.89, 95% CI 2.30 to 15.13; 6 studies). The incidence of treatment withdrawal for any reason was slightly greater for participants receiving brivaracetam compared to those receiving placebo (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.74; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence). The risk of participants experiencing one or more adverse events did not differ significantly following treatment with brivaracetam compared to placebo (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.17; 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). However, participants receiving brivaracetam did appear to be more likely to withdraw from treatment due to adverse events compared with those receiving placebo (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.33; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When used as add-on therapy for individuals with drug-resistant epilepsy, brivaracetam may be effective in reducing seizure frequency and may aid patients in achieving seizure freedom. However, add-on brivaracetam is probably associated with a greater proportion of treatment withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo. It is important to note that only one of the eligible studies included participants with generalised epilepsy. None of the included studies involved participants under the age of 16, and all studies were of short duration. Consequently, the findings of this review are mainly applicable to adult patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Future research should focus on investigating the tolerability and efficacy of brivaracetam during longer-term follow-up, as well as assess the efficacy and tolerability of add-on brivaracetam in managing other types of seizures and in other age groups.

Mechanisms of Drug Resistance in the Pathogenesis of Epilepsy: Role of Neuroinflammation. A Literature Review

Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder characterized by recurring spontaneous seizures. Drug resistance appears in 30% of patients and it can lead to premature death, brain damage or a reduced quality of life. The purpose of the study was to analyze the drug resistance mechanisms, especially neuroinflammation, in the epileptogenesis. The information bases of biomedical literature Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar and SciVerse were used. To obtain full-text documents, electronic resources of PubMed Central and Research Gate were used. The article examines the recent research of the mechanisms of drug resistance in epilepsy and discusses the hypotheses of drug resistance development (genetic, epigenetic, target hypothesis, etc.). Drug-resistant epilepsy is associated with neuroinflammatory, autoimmune and neurodegenerative processes. Neuroinflammation causes immune, pathophysiological, biochemical and psychological consequences. Focal or systemic unregulated inflammatory processes lead to the formation of aberrant neural connections and hyperexcitable neural networks. Inflammatory mediators affect the endothelium of cerebral vessels, destroy contacts between endothelial cells and induce abnormal angiogenesis (the formation of “leaky” vessels), thereby affecting the blood–brain barrier permeability. Thus, the analysis of pro-inflammatory and other components of epileptogenesis can contribute to the further development of the therapeutic treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy.

The Integrated Effects of Brivaracetam, a Selective Analog of Levetiracetam, on Ionic Currents and Neuronal Excitability

Brivaracetam (BRV) is recognized as a novel third-generation antiepileptic drug approved for the treatment of epilepsy. Emerging evidence has demonstrated that it has potentially better efficacy and tolerability than its analog, Levetiracetam (LEV). This, however, cannot be explained by their common synaptic vesicle-binding mechanism. Whether BRV can affect different ionic currents and concert these effects to alter neuronal excitability remains unclear. With the aid of patch clamp technology, we found that BRV concentration dependently inhibited the depolarization-induced M-type K⁺ current (I_K(M)), decreased the delayed-rectifier K⁺ current (I_K(DR)), and decreased the hyperpolarization-activated cation current in GH3 neurons. However, it had a concentration-dependent inhibition on voltage-gated Na⁺ current (I_Na). Under an inside-out patch configuration, a bath application of BRV increased the open probability of large-conductance Ca²⁺-activated K⁺ channels. Furthermore, in mHippoE-14 hippocampal neurons, the whole-cell I_Na was effectively depressed by BRV. In simulated modeling of hippocampal neurons, BRV was observed to reduce the firing of the action potentials (APs) concurrently with decreases in the AP amplitude. In animal models, BRV ameliorated acute seizures in both OD-1 and lithium-pilocarpine epilepsy models. However, LEV had effects in the latter only. Collectively, our study demonstrated BRV’s multiple ionic mechanism in electrically excitable cells and a potential concerted effect on neuronal excitability and hyperexcitability disorders.

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.