Conversion to brivaracetam monotherapy for the treatment of patients with focal seizures: Two double-blind, randomized, multicenter, historical control, Phase III studies

BRIVA-ONE study: 12-month outcomes of brivaracetam monotherapy in clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) monotherapy in a large series of patients with epilepsy.

METHOD

This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational, non-interventional study in 24 hospitals across Spain. Patients aged ≥18 years who started on BRV monotherapy, either as first-line or following conversion, at least 1 year before database closure were included. Patients were evaluated at baseline and at 3, 6 and 12 months after initiation of BRV monotherapy, in accordance with usual clinical practice at these centers. Data were collected retrospectively from patients' individual charts by participating physicians. The primary effectiveness and safety endpoints were the percentage of seizure-free patients 1 year after initiation of BRV monotherapy and the proportion of patients reporting adverse events (AEs) over the complete follow-up period. Retention rates and subpopulation analysis (levetiracetam switchers, elderly and different etiologies) were also investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 276 patients were included (48 with BRV as first-line monotherapy and 228 who converted to BRV monotherapy). The overall retention rate in monotherapy at 12 months was 89.9% (87.5% for first-line monotherapy group; 90.4% for conversion-to-monotherapy group). Seizure-freedom rates at 12 months were 77.8% (75% for first-line monotherapy group; 78.4% for conversion-to-monotherapy group). AEs occurred in 39.5% of patients at 12 months (35.4% for first-line monotherapy group; 40.4% for conversion-to-monotherapy group). Most AEs were mild-to-moderate. The most frequent AEs were irritability (12.3%) and dizziness (10.1%). The most frequent AEs leading to BRV withdrawal were dizziness (1.8%) and memory problems (1.4%). Similar outcomes in terms of effectiveness and tolerability of BRV monotherapy were observed in patients switching from levetiracetam, those with different epilepsy etiologies, and elderly patients.

SIGNIFICANCE

BRV was effective and well tolerated both as first-line monotherapy and following conversion to monotherapy in a real-world setting of patients with epilepsy.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

The goal of the medical treatment of epilepsy is to ensure best possible patient quality of life, by maximizing seizure control and minimizing medication toxicity. Brivaracetam (BRV) is a new-generation epilepsy treatment that is well tolerated by patients. In our study, monotherapy with BRV reduced seizures in patients who had not received other treatments and in patients who switched from a previous treatment to BRV monotherapy. BRV was well tolerated and also effective in sensitive patients (i.e., the elderly and those who had epilepsy caused by a brain tumor or a brain injury).

Conversion to Brivaracetam Monotherapy in Clinical Practice: A Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

The study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of brivaracetam (BRV) as conversion monotherapy in adults with focal epilepsy treated in the context of real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational, non-interventional study in adults with focal epilepsy who converted to BRV monotherapy following the withdrawal of background antiseizure medications (ASMs). Primary effectiveness outcome was the retention rate of BRV as single ASM at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included the 6- and 12-month rates of seizure freedom. Safety and tolerability outcomes included the frequency and type of adverse events (AEs) and the occurrence of treatment discontinuation due to AEs.

RESULTS

A total of 44 participants with a median age of 63.5 (interquartile range 44-73.5) years were included; 17 subjects were seizure free at baseline, and 9 of them switched from levetiracetam because of lack of tolerability. The retention rate of BRV monotherapy was 88.6% (39/44) at 6 months and 83.9% (26/31) at 12 months. The rates of seizure freedom were 72.7% (32/44) in subjects with 6-month follow-up and 58.1% (18/31) in subjects with 12-month follow-up. The median maintenance dosage of BRV monotherapy was 150 (100-200) mg/day at 6 months and 125 (100-200) mg/day in subjects with 12-month follow-up. Adverse events were recorded in 6/44 (13.6%) participants and led to BRV discontinuation in 2/44 (4.5%) cases. The reported AEs were somnolence (n = 3), fatigue (n = 2), and irritability (n = 1); no serious AEs were experienced. In 21/44 (47.7%) participants, BRV monotherapy resulted from the direct switch from levetiracetam. The rates of treatment retention and seizure freedom at 6 and 12 months were higher among people who switched from levetiracetam to BRV monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Brivaracetam may be a valuable treatment of focal seizures in people who converted to monotherapy in a real-life setting.

Comparative economic outcomes in patients with focal seizures initiating eslicarbazepine acetate versus brivaracetam in the long-term care setting in the USA

Aim: To compare all-cause and epilepsy-specific pharmacy and total costs associated with initiation of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) or brivaracetam (BRV) among patients with focal seizures in long-term care (LTC) in the US. Methods: This retrospective analysis used data from IQVIA's New Data Warehouse. Results: 298 patients initiated ESL and 282 patients initiated BRV. Initiation of ESL versus BRV was associated with 33.3% lower all-cause pharmacy costs, 34.4% lower epilepsy-specific pharmacy costs, 21.3% lower all-cause total costs and 30.9% lower epilepsy-specific total costs (all p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Among patients with focal seizures in LTC in the US, initiation of ESL versus BRV was associated with significant reductions in all-cause and epilepsy-specific pharmacy and total costs compared with initiation of BRV.

What has been the impact of new drug treatments on epilepsy?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nearly two dozen antiseizure medications (ASMs) with different mechanisms of action have been introduced over the past three decades with the aim of providing better efficacy or safety profile than the previous drugs. Several new ASMs with improvement on a classic drug family or have novel mechanisms of action have been recently approved for epilepsy. The present review explored recent studies or guidelines on new agents and discussed the potential impact of these novel treatments on epilepsy management and future directions of research.

RECENT FINDINGS

Long-term cohort studies showed that, collectively, the second-generation did not improve the overall prognosis of epilepsy. Individual monotherapy studies showed similar efficacy of second-generation (levetiracetam and zonisamide) and third-generation (eslicarbazepine acetate and lacosamide) ASMs compared to controlled-release carbamazepine for the treatment of focal epilepsy. However, there appears to be no evidence to support any second-generation or third-generation ASMs to be as efficacious as valproate monotherapy for generalized and unclassified epilepsies. Cannabidiol adjunctive treatments were found to be efficacious for Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Although most newer generation ASMs are less prone to drug-drug interactions, stiripentol and cannabidiol can elevate the plasma concentration of N-desmethylclobazam, the active metabolite of clobazam. Generally speaking, the second-generation ASMs have lower teratogenic risk than the older drugs but there is scant study on neurodevelopmental effect of third-generation ASMs.

SUMMARY

Although the newer generation ASMs may not have improved the overall seizure control they have advantages in terms of drug-drug interactions and teratogenicity, and thus offer valuable individualized options in the treatment of epilepsy.

Comparison of the safety of brivaracetam at various doses among patients with epilepsy: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The present study aimed to compare the safety of brivaracetam (BRV) at various doses among patients with epilepsy through a network meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were retrieved from different databases, which were then pooled for a network analysis for calculating the odds ratios (ORs), together with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). A total of 9 RCTs were included in the final analysis. Compared with placebo, BRV at a dose of 50 mg daily led to a markedly increased risk of nervous system disorders (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.90; P=0.01) and evidently increased the risk of psychiatric disorders (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.64; P=0.022). However, BRV treatment was not associated with a statistically significant change in the prevalence of infectious diseases. SUCRA analysis suggested that treatment with BRV at 50 mg/day posed the highest risk of nervous system disorders and psychiatric disorders compared with placebo or other doses of BRV. In conclusion, BRV treatment at a dose of 50 mg/day may increase the risk of nervous system diseases and psychosis disorders compared with the placebo group. However, more high-quality clinical studies are warranted to validate these results.

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.

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.

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.

Rashes and other hypersensitivity reactions associated with antiepileptic drugs: A review of current literature

This article provides an overview of the pathogenesis and risk factors associated with antiepileptic drug (AED) hypersensitivity reactions, provides prescribing guidelines that may minimize the risk of antiepileptic induced rashes, and discusses treatment options for rashes. Articles indexed in PubMed, Science Citation, and Google Scholar (January 1946-March 2019) were systematic searched using the following key terms: hypersensitivity, rash, antiepileptic, epilepsy, cross-sensitivity, desensitization, patch testing and supplemented with our clinical experiences. Additional references were identified from a review of literature citations. AEDs are associated with cutaneous adverse reactions. Aromatic AEDs and higher titration rates are associated with increased risk of hypersensitivity reaction. Patient characteristics, underlying health conditions, and genetic variations may increase the likelihood of a hypersensitivity reaction. Once a hypersensitivity reaction occurs, the likelihood of cross sensitivity to another AED increases, especially among other aromatic AEDs. Withdrawal of the causal agent and initiation of a lower risk agent usually leads to resolution of symptoms. Desensitization protocols may be an option for patients whose seizures only respond to the AED causing the rash.

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.