Is brivaracetam-induced elevation of carbamazepine-epoxide levels common and clinically relevant? — A case series

The latest advances in the pharmacological management of focal epilepsies in children: a narrative review

INTRODUCTION

Focal epilepsy constitutes the most common epilepsy in children, and medical treatment represents the first-line therapy in this condition. The main goal of medical treatment for children and adolescents with epilepsy is the achievement of seizure freedom or, in drug-resistant epilepsies, a significant seizure reduction, both minimizing antiseizure medications (ASM)-related adverse events, thus improving the patient's quality of life. However, up to 20-40% of pediatric epilepsies are refractory to drug treatments. New ASMs came to light in the pediatric landscape, improving the drug profile compared to that of the preexisting ones. Clinicians should consider several factors during the drug choice process, including patient and medication-specific characteristics.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review aims to summarize the latest evidence on the effectiveness and tolerability of the newest ASMs administered as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy in pediatric epilepsies with focal onset seizures, providing a practical appraisal based on the existing evidence.

EXPERT OPINION

The latest ASMs have the potential to be effective in the pharmacological management of focal onset seizures in children, and treatment choice should consider several drug- and epilepsy-related factors. Future treatments should be increasingly personalized and targeted on patient-specific pathways. Future research should focus on discovering new chemical compounds and repurposing medications used for other indications.

Retention of brivaracetam in adults with drug-resistant epilepsy at a single tertiary care center

INTRODUCTION

Brivaracetam (BRV) is licensed as an adjunctive treatment for focal epilepsy. We describe our clinical experience with BRV at a large UK tertiary center.

METHODS

Adults initiated on BRV between July 2015 and July 2020 were followed up until they discontinued BRV or September 2021. Data on epilepsy syndrome, duration, seizure types, concomitant and previous antiseizure medication (ASM) use, BRV dosing, efficacy, and side effects were recorded. Efficacy was categorized as temporary (minimum three months) or ongoing (at last follow-up) seizure freedom, ≥50% seizure reduction, or other benefits (e.g., no convulsions or daytime seizures). Brivaracetam retention was estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

Two-hundred people were treated with BRV, of whom 81% had focal epilepsy. The mean (interquartile range [IQR]) follow-up time was 707 (688) days, and the dose range was 50-600 mg daily. The mean (IQR) of the previous number of used ASMs was 6.9 (6.0), and concomitant use was 2.2 (1.0). One-hundred and eighty-eight people (94%) had previously discontinued levetiracetam (LEV), mainly due to side effects. 13/200 (6.5%) were seizure free for a minimum of six months during treatment, and 46/200 (23%) had a ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency for six months or more. Retention rates were 83% at six months, 71% at 12 months, and 57% at 36 months. Brivaracetam was mostly discontinued due to side effects (38/75, 51%) or lack of efficacy (28/75, 37%). Concomitant use of carbamazepine significantly increased the hazard ratio of discontinuing BRV due to side effects (p = 0.006). The most commonly reported side effects were low mood (20.5%), fatigue (18%) and aggressive behavior (8.5%). These side effects were less prevalent than when the same individuals took LEV (low mood, 59%; aggressive behavior, 43%). Intellectual disability was a risk factor for behavioral side effects (p = 0.004), and a pre-existing mood disorder significantly increased the likelihood of further episodes of low mood (p = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

Brivaracetam was effective at a broad range of doses in managing drug-resistant epilepsy across various phenotypes, but less effective than LEV in those who switched due to poor tolerability on LEV. There were no new tolerability issues, but 77% of the individuals experiencing side effects on BRV also experienced similar side effects on LEV.

An update on brivaracetam for the treatment of pediatric partial epilepsy

Introduction: Brivaracetam (BRV) is an antiseizure medication (ASM), which has been approved as an adjunctive treatment in adults and pediatric patients aged four years and older with focal onset seizures. It is a second-generation levetiracetam (LEV) derivative, sharing the same mechanism of action, binding synaptic vesicles 2A (SV2A). BRV shows higher binding affinity and selectivity and higher brain permeability than LEV.Areas covered: This article reviews randomized controlled trials, retrospective and prospective studies published up to December 2020, searched in electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Clinical Trial Database and provide an overview of efficacy, safety and tolerability of BRV in pediatric patients with partial epilepsy. Furthermore, the authors provide their expert opinion on the drug and give their future perspectives.Expert opinion: The analysis of the literature data has demonstrated the safety and efficacy of BRV in pediatric patients, with more evidence in children aged 4 to 16 years with an onset of focal seizures. However, a positive response was also achieved in patients affected by some encephalopathic epilepsies. Comparative efficacy studies between BRV and other ASMs, in addition to well-designed RCTs that include larger pediatric populations are needed to better define the role and potentiality of this ASM.

Evaluation of clinical and genetic factors in the population pharmacokinetics of carbamazepine

Aims

Carbamazepine can cause hypersensitivity reactions in ~10% of patients. An immunogenic effect can be produced by the electrophilic 10,11‐epoxide metabolite but not by carbamazepine. Hypothetically, certain single nucleotide polymorphisms might increase the formation of immunogenic metabolites, leading ultimately to hypersensitivity reactions. This study explores the role of clinical and genetic factors in the pharmacokinetics (PK) of carbamazepine and 3 metabolites known to be chemically reactive or formed through reactive intermediates.

Methods

A combination of rich and sparse PK samples were collected from healthy volunteers and epilepsy patients. All subjects were genotyped for 20 single nucleotide polymorphisms in 11 genes known to be involved in the metabolism or transport of carbamazepine and carbamazepine 10,11‐epoxide. Nonlinear mixed effects modelling was used to build a population‐PK model.

Results

In total, 248 observations were collected from 80 subjects. A 1‐compartment PK model with first‐order absorption and elimination best described the parent carbamazepine data, with a total clearance of 1.96 L/h, central distribution volume of 164 L and absorption rate constant of 0.45 h⁻¹. Total daily dose and coadministration of phenytoin were significant covariates for total clearance of carbamazepine. EPHX1‐416G/G genotype was a significant covariate for the clearance of carbamazepine 10,11‐epoxide.

Conclusion

Our data indicate that carbamazepine clearance was affected by total dose and phenytoin coadministration, but not by genetic factors, while carbamazepine 10,11‐epoxide clearance was affected by a variant in the microsomal epoxide hydrolase gene. A much larger sample size would be required to fully evaluate the role of genetic variation in carbamazepine pharmacokinetics, and thereby predisposition to carbamazepine hypersensitivity.