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

A single exposure to brivaracetam or perampanel does not cause cell death in neonatal rats

Introduction

Exposure to a range of anti-seizure medications (ASMs) during early brain development adversely impacts neurodevelopmental outcomes in both animal models and in clinical studies. Many ASMs, including phenobarbital, phenytoin, valproate (VPA), and benzodiazepines, are associated with acute neurotoxicity (cell death), impaired synaptic development, and long-term behavioral changes following gestational or neonatal exposure in animals. This is mirrored in clinical studies which show lasting neurodevelopmental deficits following early-life or gestational exposure to these drugs. Brivaracetam (BRV) and perampanel (PER) are two newer generation anti-seizure medications and are of interest based on their mechanisms of action (SV2A modulator, AMPA antagonist, respectively), as other drugs with these mechanisms of action do not trigger acute neurotoxicity. Both BRV and PER show anti-seizure efficacy in developing animals, but potential neurotoxicity of these drugs is unexplored.

Methods

To address this gap, we treated postnatal day (P)7 Sprague-Dawley rats with BRV (20, 40, 80 mg/kg) and PER (0.1, 0.9, 2.7 mg/kg), and assessed the induction of cell death across a range of vulnerable brain regions 24 h after exposure. Cell death was assessed using pathogreen staining.

Results

In each of the regions examined (dorsal striatum, nucleus accumbens, motor cortex, cingulate cortex, lateral thalamus, septum, hippocampus), VPA, which served as a positive control, significantly increased cell death as measured by the numer of pathogreen positive cells. By contrast, neither BRV nor PER increased the number of pathogreen positive cells in any region examined.

Discussion

Our results suggest that BRV and PER may have a positive safety profile-at least with respect to acute induction of cell death - and therefore may offer a safer option for the treatment of early life seizures.

Brivaracetam use in clinical practice: a Delphi consensus on its role as first add-on therapy in focal epilepsy and beyond

BACKGROUND

Antiseizure medications remain the cornerstone of treatment for epilepsy, although a proportion of individuals with the condition will continue to experience seizures despite appropriate therapy. Treatment choices for epilepsy are based on variables related to both the individual patient and the available medications. Brivaracetam is a third-generation agent antiseizure medication.

METHODS

We carried out a Delphi consensus exercise to define the role of brivaracetam in clinical practice and to provide guidance about its use as first add-on ASM and in selected clinical scenarios. A total of 15 consensus statements were drafted by an expert panel following review of the literature and all were approved in the first round of voting by panelists. The consensus indicated different clinical scenarios for which brivaracetam can be a good candidate for treatment, including first add-on use.

RESULTS

Overall, brivaracetam was considered to have many advantageous characteristics that render it a suitable option for patients with focal epilepsy, including a fast onset of action, favorable pharmacokinetic profile with few drug-drug interactions, broad-spectrum activity, and being well tolerated across a range of doses. Brivaracetam is also associated with sustained clinical response and good tolerability in the long term.

CONCLUSIONS

These characteristics also make it suitable as an early add-on for the elderly and for patients with post-stroke epilepsy or status epilepticus as highlighted by the present Delphi consensus.

Presynaptic antiseizure medications - basic mechanisms and clues for their rational combinations

Among clinically highly efficient antiseizure medications (ASMs) there are modifiers of the presynaptic release machinery. Of them, levetiracetam and brivaracetam show a high affinity to the synaptic vesicle protein type 2 A (SV2A), whereas pregabalin and gabapentin are selective ligands for the α2δ1 subunits of the voltage-gated calcium channels. In this paper, we present recent progress in understanding the significance of presynaptic release machinery in the neurochemical mechanisms of epilepsy and ASMs. Furthermore, we discuss whether the knowledge of the basic mechanisms of the presynaptically acting ASMs might help establish a rational polytherapy for drug-resistant epilepsy.

Time-course of drug-related psychiatric and behavioral treatment-emergent adverse events during brivaracetam treatment in adults with focal-onset seizures

OBJECTIVE

We previously analyzed data from three phase lll trials of adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV) in adults showing that the incidence and prevalence of drug-related central nervous system treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) quickly peaked and decreased over several weeks following BRV treatment initiation. However, that analysis did not assess psychiatric and behavioral side effects which can occur with antiseizure medication (ASM) treatment. Here, we investigate the time-course of psychiatric and behavioral TEAEs by week of BRV treatment and how these TEAEs were managed.

METHODS

Data were pooled from three trials (N01252 [NCT00490035]; N01253 [NCT00464269]; N01358 [NCT01261325]) in adult patients (≥16 years of age) with focal-onset seizures receiving BRV adjunctive therapy. This post hoc analysis reports data on the incidence and prevalence of drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs over time in patients who received BRV doses of 50-200 mg/day (without titration) or placebo (PBO) during the 12-week treatment period. A logistic regression model was used to determine if psychiatric or behavioral comorbid conditions were predictors for drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs, or BRV discontinuation due to psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs.

RESULTS

A total of 803 patients received BRV 50-200 mg/day, and 459 patients received PBO. Drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs were reported by 11.0 % of patients during adjunctive BRV treatment (PBO: 4.8 %) with onset early after BRV initiation (median time to onset of first drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAE: 15 days). Incidence peaked at week 1 and decreased over the first 4 weeks following BRV initiation. Prevalence peaked at week 4 and then remained stable between weeks 5-12. In an analysis excluding patients on concomitant levetiracetam (BRV: n = 744; PBO: n = 422), the incidence of drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs was similar to the incidence in the overall population. The most common drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs were irritability, insomnia, depression, and anxiety. Only 2 % of patients discontinued BRV due to psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs (PBO: 1.3 %), while most patients on BRV who reported drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs did not require a change in dose (84.1 %; PBO: 63.6 %). A history of psychiatric or behavioral comorbid conditions (not ongoing at BRV initiation) was not associated with an increased likelihood of drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs, or BRV discontinuation due to psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs. Ongoing psychiatric or behavioral comorbid conditions at BRV initiation increased the likelihood of drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs, but not the likelihood of BRV discontinuation due to psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug-related psychiatric and behavioral TEAEs occurred early during BRV treatment, and most patients did not require a change in BRV dose. These data can help guide clinician monitoring and patient expectations after starting BRV.

Narrative Review of Brivaracetam: Preclinical Profile and Clinical Benefits in the Treatment of Patients with Epilepsy

One third of patients with epilepsy will continue to have uncontrolled seizures despite treatment with antiseizure medications (ASMs). There is therefore a need to develop novel ASMs. Brivaracetam (BRV) is an ASM that was developed in a major drug discovery program aimed at identifying selective, high-affinity synaptic vesicle protein 2A (SV2A) ligands, the target molecule of levetiracetam. BRV binds to SV2A with 15- to 30-fold higher affinity and greater selectivity than levetiracetam. BRV has broad-spectrum antiseizure activity in animal models of epilepsy, a favorable pharmacokinetic profile, few clinically relevant drug-drug interactions, and rapid brain penetration. BRV is available in oral and intravenous formulations and can be initiated at target dose without titration. Efficacy and safety of adjunctive BRV (50-200 mg/day) treatment of focal-onset seizures was demonstrated in three pivotal phase III trials (NCT00490035/NCT00464269/NCT01261325), including in patients who had previously failed levetiracetam. Efficacy and safety of adjunctive BRV were also demonstrated in adult Asian patients with focal-onset seizures (NCT03083665). In several open-label trials (NCT00150800/NCT00175916/NCT01339559), long-term safety and tolerability of adjunctive BRV was established, with efficacy maintained for up to 14 years, with high retention rates. Evidence from daily clinical practice highlights BRV effectiveness and tolerability in specific epilepsy patient populations with high unmet needs: the elderly (≥ 65 years of age), children (< 16 years of age), patients with cognitive impairment, patients with psychiatric comorbid conditions, and patients with acquired epilepsy of specific etiologies (post-stroke epilepsy/brain tumor related epilepsy/traumatic brain injury-related epilepsy). Here, we review the preclinical profile and clinical benefits of BRV from pivotal trials and recently published evidence from daily clinical practice.

An analysis of suicidal and self-injurious behavior reports with antiseizure medications in the FDA adverse event database

BACKGROUND

Pharmacovigilance systems such as the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), are established models for adverse event surveillance that may have been missed during clinical trials. We aimed to analyze twenty-five anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in FAERS to assess for increased reporting of suicidal and self-injurious behavior.

METHODS

Twenty-five ASMs were analyzed: brivaracetam, cannabidiol, carbamazepine, clobazam, clonazepam, diazepam, eslicarbazepine, felbamate, gabapentin, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, perampanel, phenobarbital, phenytoin, pregabalin, primidone, rufinamide, stiripentol, tiagabine, topiramate, valproate, vigabatrin, zonisamide. Reports of "suicidal and self-injurious behavior" were collected from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2020, using OpenVigil 2.1 tool with indication as "Epilepsy". Relative reporting ratio, proportional reporting ratio, and reporting odds ratio were calculated utilizing all other drug reports for epilepsy patients as a control.

RESULTS

Significant relative operating ratio, ROR (greater than 1, p<0.05) were observed for diazepam (2.909), pregabalin (2.739), brivaracetam (2.462), gabapentin (2.185), clonazepam (1.649), zonisamide (1.462), lacosamide (1.333), and levetiracetam (1.286).

CONCLUSIONS

Of the 25 ASMs that were analyzed in this study, 4 (16%) were identified to have been linked with a likely true adverse event. These drugs included diazepam, brivaracetam, gabapenetin, and pregabalin. Although several limitations are present with the FAERS database, it is imperative to closely monitor patient comorbidities for increased risk of suicidality with the use of several ASMs.

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.

Psychiatric assessment prior to and after switch from levetiracetam to brivaracetam

PURPOSE

Brivaracetam is often used as an alternative to levetiracetam in patients with epilepsy (PWE) encountering efficacy issues or adverse events with levetiracetam. This study evaluated the psychological status of PWE who were switched from levetiracetam to brivaracetam due to psychiatric tolerability concerns in comparison to those who remained on levetiracetam.

METHODS

We used various psychological assessments including the Symptom Checklist SCL-90-R, the Beck Depression Inventory-II, and the adverse event profile. Eligible participants completed the questionnaires at baseline and again 8 days later. Psychological changes were assessed using standard statistical methods to show differences between a group that immediately switched from levetiracetam to brivaracetam and another group with unchanged levetiracetam.

RESULTS

Between May 2020 and May 2021, 63 patients participated in the study, of whom 34 switched from levetiracetam to brivaracetam. At baseline, participants who switched to brivaracetam had fewer antiseizure medications but experienced more monthly seizures. Baseline scores for anxiety (p = 0.020) and psychoticism (p = 0.046) on SCL-90-R in PWE switched to brivaracetam were higher than in the remaining group. In the subsequent assessment, all psychological scores were reduced and were no longer significantly different between both groups. Using multiple regression, initial treatment with a single antiseizure medication and male gender emerged as predictors of psychological improvement.

CONCLUSION

Our study found no increased risk of adverse events or psychiatric symptoms after switching from levetiracetam to brivaracetam. Though statistically non-significant, a trend towards improved psychiatric outcomes in the switch group warrants further investigation in future trials with stronger designs for enhanced statistical power.

Brivaracetam and topiramate serum levels during pregnancy and delivery: a case report and a review of literature

BACKGROUND

An increasing use of newer antiseizure medication (ASM) such as SV2A ligand brivaracetam is observed. However, data on newer antiseizure medication and therapeutic drug monitoring during pregnancy is scarce.

METHODS

Therapeutic drug monitoring of brivaracetam (BRV) and topiramate (TPM) serum levels were performed during pregnancy, delivery and in the umbilical cord blood at delivery in a 34-year-old female patient with severe drug-resistant epilepsy.

RESULTS

During pregnancy, the serum levels of brivaracetam and topiramate remained stable. At 39th week of pregnancy, the patient gave birth to a healthy daughter. 1.5 h after the last ASM intake, the penetration rate measured in umbilical cord blood was 45% lower for BRV and 35% lower for TPM.

CONCLUSIONS

While the pharmacokinetics of topiramate are well known and its use during pregnancy should only be undertaken under special circumstances, there have been few studies on newer ASM in pregnancy such as brivaracetam. Based on our results and other case reports of BRV use during pregnancy, further studies are necessary to confirm its pharmacokinetics and safety during pregnancy.

Brivaracetam as add-on therapy in children with developmental epileptic encephalopathies: A study of 42 patients

OBJECTIVE

Here we present a multicenter series of patients with developmental epileptic encephalopathies (DEE) who were treated with brivaracetam (BRV) as add-on therapy.

METHODS

Medical records of 42 patients with DEE treated with add-on BRV seen at four pediatric neurology centers in Argentina between January 2021 and July 2023 were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

We included 42 patients (26 males, 16 females) with a mean age of 7 years (SD, ± 3.8; median, 9; range, 2-16). The children had different types of childhood-onset treatment-resistant DEEs and received BRV as add-on therapy for a mean period of 2 years (SD, ± 1.3 years; median, 1.5 years; range, 0.5-3 years). Thirty-three patients received levetiracetam (LEV) before the introduction of BRV. In nine patients, BRV was started without prior LEV because of behavioral disturbances. Three patients (9.5 %) became seizure free and 26/42 patients (62.1 %) had a greater than 50 % decrease in seizures after a mean follow-up of 21 months. Ten patients (23.8 %) had a 25-50 % seizure reduction, while seizure frequency remained unchanged in two (4.7 %) and increased in one patient (2.4 %). The interictal EEG abnormalities improved in all the responders. Adverse effects, consisting of drowsiness, irritability, and decreased appetite, were observed in seven patients (16.6 %), but did not lead to treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

Brivaracetam was found to be effective, safe, and well tolerated in children with DEE. In patients on LEV with behavioral disturbances, BRV may be tried. BRV may also be given without a previous trial with LEV in patients with behavioral problems.

Rapid switching from levetiracetam to brivaracetam in pharmaco-resistant epilepsy in people with and without intellectual disabilities: a naturalistic case control study

BACKGROUND

Approximately one quarter of people with an intellectual disability (PwID) have epilepsy of whom nearly three-quarters are pharmaco-resistant. There are higher reported neuropsychiatric side-effects to anti-seizure medication (ASM) in this group. Levetiracetam (LEV) is a first-line ASM with a stronger association with neuropsychiatric symptoms for PwID than other ASMs. Brivaracetam (BRV) is a newer ASM. Recent studies suggest a beneficial effect of swapping people who experience neuropsychiatric events with LEV to BRV. However, there is limited evidence of this for PwID. This evaluation analyses real world outcomes of LEV to BRV swap for PwID compared to those without ID.

METHODS

We performed a multicentre, retrospective review of clinical records. Demographic, clinical characteristics and reported adverse events of patients switched from LEV to BRV (2016-2020) were recorded at 3 months pre and 6- and 12-month post-BRV initiation. Outcomes were compared between PwID and those without and summarised using cross-tabulations and logistic regression models. A Bonferroni correction was applied.

RESULTS

Of 77 participants, 46 had ID and 52% had a past psychiatric illness. 71% participants switched overnight from LEV to BRV. Seizure reduction of > 50% was seen in 40% patients. Psychiatric illness history was predictive of having neuropsychiatric side-effects with LEV but not BRV (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference for any primary outcomes between PwID versus without ID.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from LEV to BRV appears as well tolerated and efficacious in PwID as those without ID with over 90% still on BRV after 12 months.

Effectiveness and Tolerability of 12-Month Brivaracetam in the Real World: EXPERIENCE, an International Pooled Analysis of Individual Patient Records

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Real-world evidence studies of brivaracetam (BRV) have been restricted in scope, location, and patient numbers. The objective of this pooled analysis was to assess effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in routine practice in a large international population.

METHODS

EXPERIENCE/EPD332 was a pooled analysis of individual patient records from multiple independent non-interventional studies of patients with epilepsy initiating BRV in Australia, Europe, and the United States. Eligible study cohorts were identified via a literature review and engagement with country lead investigators, clinical experts, and local UCB Pharma scientific/medical teams. Included patients initiated BRV no earlier than January 2016 and no later than December 2019, and had ≥ 6 months of follow-up data. The databases for each cohort were reformatted and standardised to ensure information collected was consistent. Outcomes included ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in seizure frequency, seizure freedom (no seizures within 3 months before timepoint), continuous seizure freedom (no seizures from baseline), BRV discontinuation, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Patients with missing data after BRV discontinuation were considered non-responders/not seizure free. Analyses were performed for all adult patients (≥ 16 years), and for subgroups by seizure type recorded at baseline; by number of prior antiseizure medications (ASMs) at index; by use of BRV as monotherapy versus polytherapy at index; for patients who switched from levetiracetam to BRV versus patients who switched from other ASMs to BRV; and for patients with focal-onset seizures and a BRV dose of ≤ 200 mg/day used as add-on at index. Analysis populations included the full analysis set (FAS; all patients who received at least one BRV dose and had seizure type and age documented at baseline) and the modified FAS (all FAS patients who had at least one seizure recorded during baseline). The FAS was used for all outcomes other than ≥ 50% seizure reduction. All outcomes were summarised using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Analyses included 1644 adults. At baseline, 72.0% were 16-49 years of age and 92.2% had focal-onset seizures. Patients had a median (Q1, Q3) of 5.0 (2.0, 8.0) prior antiseizure medications at index. At 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively, ≥ 50% seizure reduction was achieved by 32.1% (n = 619), 36.7% (n = 867), and 36.9% (n = 822) of patients; seizure freedom rates were 22.4% (n = 923), 17.9% (n = 1165), and 14.9% (n = 1111); and continuous seizure freedom rates were 22.4% (n = 923), 15.7% (n = 1165), and 11.7% (n = 1111). During the whole study follow-up, 551/1639 (33.6%) patients discontinued BRV. TEAEs since prior visit were reported in 25.6% (n = 1542), 14.2% (n = 1376), and 9.3% (n = 1232) of patients at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This pooled analysis using data from a variety of real-world settings suggests BRV is effective and well tolerated in routine clinical practice in a highly drug-resistant patient population.

Adverse Event Profiles of Antiseizure Medications and the Impact of Coadministration on Drug Tolerability in Adults with Epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Antiseizure medication (ASM) as monotherapy or in combination is the treatment of choice for most patients with epilepsy. Therefore, knowledge about the typical adverse events (AEs) for ASMs and other coadministered drugs (CDs) is essential for practitioners and patients. Due to frequent polypharmacy, it is often difficult to clinically assess the AE profiles of ASMs and differentiate the influence of CDs.

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective analysis aimed to determine typical AE profiles for ASMs and assess the impact of CDs on AEs in clinical practice.

METHODS

The Liverpool AE Profile (LAEP) and its domains were used to identify the AE profiles of ASMs based on data from a large German multicenter study (Epi2020). Following established classifications, drugs were grouped according to their mode of action (ASMs) or clinical indication (CDs). Bivariate correlation, multivariate ordinal regression (MORA), and artificial neural network (ANNA) analyses were performed. Bivariate correlation with Fisher's z-transformation was used to compare the correlation strength of LAEP with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory for Epilepsy (NDDI-E) to avoid LAEP bias in the context of antidepressant therapy.

RESULTS

Data from 486 patients were analyzed. The AE profiles of ASM categories and single ASMs matched those reported in the literature. Synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A (SV2A) and voltage-gated sodium channel (VGSC) modulators had favorable AE profiles, while brivaracetam was superior to levetiracetam regarding psychobehavioral AEs. MORA revealed that, in addition to seizure frequency, α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) modulators and antidepressants were the only independent predictors of high LAEP values. After Fisher's z-transformation, correlations were significantly lower between LAEP and antidepressants than between LAEP and HADS or NDDI-E. Therefore, a bias in the results toward over interpreting the impact of antidepressants on LAEP was presumed. In the ANNA, perampanel, zonisamide, topiramate, and valproic acid were important nodes in the network, while VGSC and SV2A modulators had low relevance for predicting relevant AEs. Similarly, cardiovascular agents, analgesics, and antipsychotics were important CDs in the ANNA model.

CONCLUSION

ASMs have characteristic AE profiles that are highly reproducible and must be considered in therapeutic decision-making. Therapy using perampanel as an AMPA modulator should be considered cautiously due to its relatively high AE profile. Drugs acting via VGSCs and SV2A receptors are significantly better tolerated than other ASM categories or substances (e.g., topiramate, zonisamide, and valproate). Switching to brivaracetam is advisable in patients with psychobehavioral AEs who take levetiracetam. Because CDs frequently pharmacokinetically interact with ASMs, the cumulative AE profile must be considered.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS00022024, U1111-1252-5331.

Therapeutic Strategies to Ameliorate Neuronal Damage in Epilepsy by Regulating Oxidative Stress, Mitochondrial Dysfunction, and Neuroinflammation

Epilepsy is a central nervous system disorder involving spontaneous and recurring seizures that affects 50 million individuals globally. Because approximately one-third of patients with epilepsy do not respond to drug therapy, the development of new therapeutic strategies against epilepsy could be beneficial. Oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction are frequently observed in epilepsy. Additionally, neuroinflammation is increasingly understood to contribute to the pathogenesis of epilepsy. Mitochondrial dysfunction is also recognized for its contributions to neuronal excitability and apoptosis, which can lead to neuronal loss in epilepsy. This review focuses on the roles of oxidative damage, mitochondrial dysfunction, NAPDH oxidase, the blood-brain barrier, excitotoxicity, and neuroinflammation in the development of epilepsy. We also review the therapies used to treat epilepsy and prevent seizures, including anti-seizure medications, anti-epileptic drugs, anti-inflammatory therapies, and antioxidant therapies. In addition, we review the use of neuromodulation and surgery in the treatment of epilepsy. Finally, we present the role of dietary and nutritional strategies in the management of epilepsy, including the ketogenic diet and the intake of vitamins, polyphenols, and flavonoids. By reviewing available interventions and research on the pathophysiology of epilepsy, this review points to areas of further development for therapies that can manage epilepsy.

Current evidence for adjunct pyridoxine (vitamin B6) for the treatment of behavioral adverse effects associated with levetiracetam: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Levetiracetam (LVT), while an effective treatment for multiple seizure types, is associated with a high incidence of neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPAEs). In predominantly retrospective studies, supplementation with pyridoxine/vitamin B₆ (PN) was associated with improvement in NPAEs in some people. A previous review highlighted a lack of double-blind, controlled trials of PN for the treatment of NPAEs in individuals treated with LVT. The current paper updates the findings from the previous review to include evidence from studies published since June 2019.

METHODS

An updated systematic review of the published literature was performed in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched to identify studies published between June 2019 and 2nd November 2022 in which supplementary PN was initiated for the treatment of LVT-associated NPAEs. All study types were eligible. The risk of bias in randomized trials was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

RESULTS

Seven additional studies were identified: two double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), four retrospective studies, and one retrospective case series. One RCT reported significant improvements from baseline in behavioral adverse events (BAEs) in both the intervention (PN) group and the low-dose control group (both p < 0.05), with a significantly greater improvement in the intervention group (p < 0.001). In the second RCT, differences in BAE severity between PN and placebo groups at the endpoint were not statistically significant. In one retrospective study, subjective irritability was reported to have improved from baseline in 9/20 individuals (45%) treated with supplementary PN. Data for systematic assessments (PHQ-9 and GAD-7) were available for 10 individuals. Assessment by PHQ-9 showed that six individuals improved, two worsened and two had no change. Based on the GAD-7, three people improved, two worsened and five had no change. In the second retrospective study, 18/41 individuals (44%) who commenced PN following the emergence of BAEs showed "significant" improvement. In a separate group of individuals with pre-existing behavioral problems in whom PN treatment was initiated at the same time as commencing LVT, 3/18 (16.7%) developed BAEs. This compared with 79/458 people (17.2%) who were initially treated only with LVT. The third retrospective study compared treatment-related irritability in individuals who had been treated with both LVT and perampanel, either sequentially or concomitantly. Two people who developed irritability while receiving LVT monotherapy were able to continue treatment with the addition of PN. The fourth study reported a significantly lower LVT discontinuation rate in individuals taking PN and a higher rate of improved behavior in those who were able to continue LVT. The case series reported improvements in behavioral symptoms in six people within two to three weeks of commencing supplementary PN.

CONCLUSION

Data published within the last three years add to earlier evidence suggesting that PN might be effective in the treatment of NPAEs associated with LVT. However, the quality of evidence remains poor and only a few prospective trials have been published. Data from placebo-controlled trials are still largely lacking. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to justify any firm recommendation for PN supplementation to treat NPAEs associated with LVT. Further well-designed, prospective trials are warranted.

Channeling of New Neuropsychiatric Drugs-Impact on Safety and Effectiveness Studies

This study aimed to examine differential prescribing due to channeling and propensity score non-overlap over time in new versus established treatments for common neurological conditions. We conducted cross-sectional analyses on a national sample of US commercially insured adults using 2005-2019 data. We compared new users of recently approved versus established medications for management of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pregabalin versus gabapentin), Parkinson disease psychosis (pimavanserin versus quetiapine), and epilepsy (brivaracetam versus levetiracetam). Within these drug pairs, we compared demographic, clinical, and healthcare utilization characteristics of recipients of each drug. In addition, we fit yearly propensity score models for each condition and assessed propensity score non-overlap over time. For all three drug pairs, users of the more recently approved medications more frequently had prior treatment (pregabalin = 73.9%, gabapentin = 38.7%; pimavanserin = 41.1%, quetiapine = 14.0%; brivaracetam = 93.4%, levetiracetam = 32.1%). Propensity score non-overlap and its resulting sample loss after trimming were the greatest in the first year that the more recently approved medication was available (diabetic peripheral neuropathy, 12.4% non-overlap; Parkinson disease psychosis, 6.1%; epilepsy, 43.2%) and subsequently improved. Newer neuropsychiatric therapies appear to be channeled to individuals with refractory disease or intolerance to other treatments, leading to potential confounding and biased comparative effectiveness and safety study findings when compared to established treatments. Propensity score non-overlap should be reported in comparative studies that include newer medications. When studies comparing newer and established treatments are critically needed as soon as new treatments enter the market, investigators should recognize the potential for channeling bias and implement methodological approaches like those demonstrated in this study to understand and improve this issue in such studies.

A review of cognitive and behavioral outcomes of Brivaracetam

Anti-seizure medications (ASMs) can cause cognitive or behavioral adverse drug reactions, which is an important consideration when selecting an appropriate ASM. Brivaracetam (BRV) is a newer synaptic vesicle protein 2A ligand, which is expected to result in fewer neuropsychiatric adverse effects due to its mechanism of action. To understand the impact of BRV on cognition and behavior compared with other ASMs, we conducted a review of the literature using the Cochrane Library, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Embase. After the screening process, a total of two animal studies, one randomized controlled trial, one pooled analysis of clinical trials, one controlled study, and nine observational studies were included. The animal studies showed that BRV did not worsen cognitive or behavioral performance in rodents. The human studies showed that BRV was associated with fewer cognitive adverse events compared with other second- or third-generation ASMs. In addition, BRV was less associated with behavioral disturbance than levetiracetam. In summary, this review revealed that BRV has a limited impact on cognition and behavior. For patients who are intolerant to levetiracetam and have levetiracetam-related behavioral side effects, switching to BRV could be beneficial. However, heterogeneity between studies resulted in low-quality of evidence, and further trials are needed to confirm the findings.

Levetiracetam-associated behavioral adverse events in neurocritical care patients

STUDY OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to identify the incidence of levetiracetam-associated BAEs in NCC patients.

DESIGN

Single-center retrospective cohort analysis.

DATA SOURCE

Patient charts.

PATIENTS

965 adult ICU patients with a neurological injury receiving levetiracetam that were admitted to an intensive care unit.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

There were 965 patients included; 52% males with a median GCS of 13. Injury types included TBI (43.1%), ICH (21.8%), SAH (20.5%), and CI (14.6%). BAEs were identified in 46% of patients. Of these, 60% had documentation of agitation/restlessness, delirium, or anxiety while receiving levetiracetam, only 25% had a positive CAM-ICU, 13% had restraints ordered, and 42% received antipsychotics. Patients with TBI had the highest incidence of BAEs (52.4%). The median time to initiation of levetiracetam after hospital admission was 6.4 hours and BAEs occurred after 1.3 days of levetiracetam initiation.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we found that almost half of our NCC population experienced levetiracetam associated BAEs which were mostly hyperactive in nature. We believe that the incidence of BAEs in our specific patient population cannot solely be attributed to ICU delirium given the lower risk of developing hyperactive delirium in ICU patients as compared to other subtypes. Therefore, monitoring and determination of the benefit versus risk in those experiencing BAEs is highly encouraged.

Putting the Brakes on Accelerated Cognitive Decline in Alzheimer's Disease with Epileptic Activity

Epileptic activity is known to exacerbate Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology and worsen disease course. However, few studies have assessed whether treating epileptic activity with antiseizure drugs (ASDs) can improve patient outcomes. The current study by Hautecloque-Raysz et al. shows that patients with prodromal AD and epilepsy (epAD) fare well with ASD treatment, achieving seizure control in a large majority of cases using low dosage ASDs in monotherapy. Compared to slowly progressing AD patients without epilepsy, treated epAD patients experienced a similarly slow cognitive decline. These results suggest that ASDs that suppress seizures can improve outcomes in AD patients with epileptic activity.

Antidepressant Drugs for Seizures and Epilepsy: Where do we Stand?

People with epilepsy (PWE) are more likely to develop depression and both these complex chronic diseases greatly affect health-related quality of life (QOL). This comorbidity contributes to the deterioration of the QOL further than increasing the severity of epilepsy worsening prognosis. Strong scientific evidence suggests the presence of shared pathogenic mechanisms. The correct identification and management of these factors are crucial in order to improve patients' QOL. This review article discusses recent original research on the most common pathogenic mechanisms of depression in PWE and highlights the effects of antidepressant drugs (ADs) against seizures in PWE and animal models of seizures and epilepsy. Newer ADs, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRRI) or serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRI), particularly sertraline, citalopram, mirtazapine, reboxetine, paroxetine, fluoxetine, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, venlafaxine, duloxetine may lead to improvements in epilepsy severity whereas the use of older tricyclic antidepressant (TCAs) can increase the occurrence of seizures. Most of the data demonstrate the acute effects of ADs in animal models of epilepsy while there is a limited number of studies about the chronic antidepressant effects in epilepsy and epileptogenesis or on clinical efficacy. Much longer treatments are needed in order to validate the effectiveness of these new alternatives in the treatment and the development of epilepsy, while further clinical studies with appropriate protocols are warranted in order to understand the real potential contribution of these drugs in the management of PWE (besides their effects on mood).

BRIVEST: A 'real-world' observational, single-centre study investigating the efficacy, safety and tolerability of Brivaracetam

OBJECTIVE

Via measures of efficacy, tolerability, and safety, this open-label, single-center study assessed the overall effectiveness of Brivaracetam (BRV) for the treatment of epilepsy in the context of 'real-world' clinical practice.

METHODS

Unselected consecutive patients were recruited and stratified into 3 cohorts with either fully prospective, fully retrospective or mixed data collection, dependent on whether their BRV prescriptions were historical, current, or pending. Prospective data were obtained at baseline, 3 and 6 months, and at 6-month intervals thereafter, from patient interviews and seizure diaries, and retrospective data from medical records. Efficacy variables were derived from seizure-related changes, and tolerability and safety variables from reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), BRV withdrawal, and changes to questionnaire scores. Additionally, we investigated treatment outcomes for those with previous levetiracetam (LEV) use, a history of psychiatric comorbidity, a learning disability, and of older age.

RESULTS

One hundred and nine patients (58.7% female, mean age 42 years, range: 18 to 72) were included, 59 with prospective follow-up for a minimum of 6 (47 patients, excluding those who withdrew) and a maximum of 24 months (2 patients). Of the full cohort, 87.2% had drug-resistant epilepsy. Retention: At the study end, the median treatment duration was 384 days (range: 6 to 1514 days), and BRV retention was 68.8%. Kaplan-Meier survival functions predicted retention rates of 74.0% and 70.0% at 6 and 12 months respectively.

EFFICACY

At the last follow-up, there was a ≥ 50% responder rate of 30.8%, with 12.1% seizure-free. Seizure frequency categories improved in 31.4% of patients, remained the same in 44.2%, and worsened in 24.4%. Monthly tonic-clonic seizure frequency had significantly decreased, and of those reporting these seizures, 58.3% showed reductions and 25.0% showed complete tonic-clonic seizure freedom.

TOLERABILITY

91.7% of patients reported at least 1 TEAE, with fatigue (30.3%), irritability (29.4%), and depression/low mood (28.4%) as the most common. Only 58.4% of all TEAEs were persistent. Brivaracetam discontinuation due to side effects occurred in 27.5% of the cohort. Depression and anxiety scores remained stable over time, and quality-of-life scores improved. Subgroups: Measures of BRV efficacy and tolerability did not differ according to previous LEV exposure. Tolerability profiles of those with learning disabilities, histories of psychiatric comorbidities, and older age did not greatly differ from the rest of the cohort. Of note, specific history of depression predicted the reporting of suicidal ideation.

CONCLUSION

The BRIVEST study provides real-world evidence of the effectiveness of BRV, suggesting that neither drug-resistant epilepsy nor previous LEV failure should preclude its use. Furthermore, BRV appears to be well-tolerated, even among those from vulnerable patient populations.

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.

Current and future pharmacotherapy options for drug-resistant epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

Epilepsy is one of the most common and serious neurological conditions, affecting over 70 million individuals worldwide and despite advances in treatment, the proportion of drug-resistant patients has remained largely unchanged.

AREAS COVERED

The present paper reviews current and future (under preclinical and clinical development) pharmacotherapy options for the treatment of drug-resistant focal and generalized epilepsies.

EXPERT OPINION

Current pharmacotherapy options for drug-resistant epilepsy include perampanel, brivaracetam and the newly approved cenobamate for focal epilepsies; cannabidiol (Epidiolex) for Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome (LGS), Dravet and Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC); fenfluramine for Dravet syndrome and ganaxolone for seizures in Cyclin-dependent kinase-like 5 (CDKL5) deficiency disorder. Many compounds are under clinical development and may hold promise for future pharmacotherapies. For adult focal epilepsies, padsevonil and carisbamate are at a more advanced Phase III stage of clinical development followed by compounds at Phase II like selurampanel, XEN1101 and JNJ-40411813. For specific epilepsy syndromes, XEN 496 is under Phase III development for potassium voltage-gated channel subfamily Q member 2 developmental and epileptic encephalopathy (KCNQ2-DEE), carisbamate is under Phase III development for LGS and Ganaxolone under Phase III development for TSC. Finally, in preclinical models several molecular targets including inhibition of glycolysis, neuroinflammation and sodium channel inhibition have been identified in animal models although further data in animal and later human studies are needed.

Pharmacotherapeutic management of seizures in patients with Angleman syndrome

Approximately 80-90% of patients with Angelman syndrome (AS) develop childhood-onset intractable seizures with major negative impact on the quality of life.Thus adequate management of seizures is the most critical priority to improve health-related quality of life in children with AS.

AREAS COVERED

The primary focus of the review is on pharmacotherapeutic management of seizures. The first part of the review briefly discusses epileptogenesis and polymorphic seizure phenotypes associated with AS to understand pharmacotherapeutic decision-making better. Next, the review explores individual antiseizure medicines (ASMs) and their potential therapeutic utility. Lastly, some future and emerging treatment options are discussed that can transform the management of seizures in patients with AS.

EXPERT OPINION

Evidence for treating seizures in AS mainly derives from low-quality studies. Levetiracetam and clobazam are the most commonly used ASMs. Although the potential utility of several other ASMs(valproate, topiramate, lamotrigine, ethosuximide, clonazepam) has been well documented for some time, the treatment landscape may rapidly evolve due to the availability of newer and better tolerated ASMs(cannabidiol oil, brivaracetam, perampanel). In addition, a better understanding of the underlying pathogenesis and the development of molecular therapeutics offer hope for precision therapies for seizures.

Treatment and care of women with epilepsy before, during, and after pregnancy: a practical guide

Women with epilepsy (WWE) wishing for a child represent a highly relevant subgroup of epilepsy patients. The treating epileptologist needs to delineate the epilepsy syndrome and choose the appropriate anti-seizure medication (ASM) considering the main goal of seizure freedom, teratogenic risks, changes in drug metabolism during pregnancy and postpartum, demanding for up-titration during and down-titration after pregnancy. Folic acid or vitamin K supplements and breastfeeding are also discussed in this review. Lamotrigine and levetiracetam have the lowest teratogenic potential. Data on teratogenic risks are also favorable for oxcarbazepine, whereas topiramate tends to have an unfavorable profile. Valproate needs special emphasis. It is most effective in generalized seizures but should be avoided whenever possible due to its teratogenic effects and the negative impact on neuropsychological development of in utero-exposed children. Valproate still has its justification in patients not achieving seizure freedom with other ASMs or if a woman decides to or cannot become pregnant for any reason. When valproate is the most appropriate treatment option, the patient and caregiver must be fully informed of the risks associated with its use during pregnancies. Folate supplementation is recommended to reduce the risk of major congenital malformations. However, there is insufficient information to address the optimal dose and it is unclear whether higher doses offer greater protection. There is currently no general recommendation for a peripartum vitamin K prophylaxis. During pregnancy most ASMs (e.g. lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, and levetiracetam) need to be increased to compensate for the decline in serum levels; exceptions are valproate and carbamazepine. Postpartum, baseline levels are reached relatively fast, and down-titration is performed empirically. Many ASMs in monotherapy are (moderately) safe for breastfeeding and women should be encouraged to do so. This review provides a practically oriented overview of the complex management of WWE before, during, and after pregnancy.

Movement disorders associated with antiseizure medications: A systematic review

New-onset movement disorders have been frequently reported in association with the use of antiseizure medications (ASMs). The frequency of specific motor manifestations and the spectrum of their semiology for various ASMs have not been well characterized. We carried out a systematic review of literature and conducted a search on CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Scopus from inception to April 2021. We compiled the data for all currently available ASMs using the conventional terminology of movement disorders. Among 5123 manuscripts identified by the search, 437 met the inclusion criteria. The largest number of reports of abnormal movements were in association with phenobarbital, valproic acid, lacosamide, and perampanel, and predominantly included tremor and ataxia. The majority of attempted interventions for all agents were discontinuation of the offending drug or dose reduction which led to the resolution of symptoms in most patients. Familiarity with the movement disorder phenomenology previously encountered in relation with specific ASMs facilitates early recognition of adverse effects and timely institution of targeted interventions.

Intravenous Brivaracetam in the Management of Acute Seizures in the Hospital Setting: A Scoping Review

Background

Clinical considerations for drug treatment of acute seizures involve variables such as safety, tolerability, drug-drug interactions, dosage, route of administration, and alterations in pharmacokinetics because of critical illness. Therapy options that are easily and quickly administered without dilution, well tolerated, and effective are needed for the treatment of acute seizures. The objective of this review is to focus on the clinical considerations relating to the use of intravenous brivaracetam (IV BRV) for the treatment of acute seizures in the hospital, focusing on critically ill patients.

Methods

This was a scoping literature review of PubMed from inception to April 13, 2021, and search of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) 2021 Annual Meeting website for English language publications/conference abstracts reporting the results of IV BRV use in hospitalized patients, particularly in the critical care setting. Outcomes of interest relating to the clinical pharmacology, safety, tolerability, efficacy, and effectiveness of IV BRV were reviewed and are discussed.

Results

Twelve studies were included for analysis. One study showed that plasma concentrations of IV BRV 15 min after the first dose were similar between patients receiving IV BRV as bolus or infusion. IV BRV was generally well tolerated in patients with acute seizures in the hospital setting, with a low incidence of individual TEAEs classified as behavioral disorders. IV BRV demonstrated efficacy and effectiveness and had a rapid onset, with clinical and electrophysiological improvement in seizures observed within minutes. Although outside of the approved label, findings from several studies suggest that IV BRV reduces seizures and is generally well tolerated in patients with status epilepticus.

Conclusions

IV BRV shows effectiveness, and is generally well tolerated in the management of acute seizures in hospitalized patients where rapid administration is needed, representing a clinically relevant antiseizure medication for potential use in the critical care setting.

Antiseizure medication discovery: Recent and future paradigm shifts

Despite the ever-increasing number of available options for the treatment of epilepsies and the remarkable advances on the understanding of their pathophysiology, the proportion of refractory patients has remained approximately unmodified during the last 100 years. How efficient are we translating positive outcomes from basic research to clinical trials and/or the clinical scenario? It is possible that fresh thinking and exploration of new paradigms is required to arrive at truly novel therapeutic solutions, as seemingly proven by recently approved first-in-class antiseizure medications and drug candidates undergoing late clinical trials. Here, the author discusses some approximations in line with the network pharmacology philosophy, which may result in highly innovative (and, hopefully, safer and/or more efficacious) medications for the control of seizures, as embodied with some recent examples in the field, namely tailored multi-target agents and low-affinity ligands.

Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Intravenous Brivaracetam Compared With Levetiracetam for the Treatment of Seizures in United States Hospitals

Background: Seizures are common among hospitalized patients. Levetiracetam (LEV), a synaptic vesicle protein 2A (SV2A) ligand, is a common intravenous (IV) anti-seizure medication option in hospitals. Brivaracetam (BRV), a selective SV2A ligand for treatment of focal seizures in patients ≥16 years, has greater binding affinity, higher lipophilicity, and faster brain entry than IV LEV. Differences in clinical outcomes and associated costs between IV BRV and IV LEV in treating hospitalized patients with seizure remain unknown.

Objectives: To compare the clinical outcomes, costs, and healthcare resource utilization between patients with seizure treated with IV BRV and those with IV LEV within hospital setting.

Design/Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed using chargemaster data from 210 United States hospitals in Premier Healthcare Database. Adult patients (age ≥18 years) treated intravenously with LEV or BRV (with or without BZD) and a seizure discharge diagnosis between July 1, 2016 and December 31, 2019 were included. The cohorts were propensity score-matched 4:1 on baseline characteristics. Outcomes included intubation rates, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, length of stay (LOS), all-cause and seizure-related readmission, total hospitalization cost, and in-hospital mortality. A multivariable regression analysis was performed to determine the association between treatment and main outcomes adjusting for unbalanced confounders.

Results: A total of 450 patients were analyzed (IV LEV, n = 360 vs. IV BRV, n = 90). Patients treated with IV BRV had lower crude prevalence of ICU admission (14.4 vs. 24.2%, P < 0.05), 30-day all-cause readmission (1.1 vs. 6.4%, P = 0.06), seizure-related 30-day readmission (0 vs. 4.2%, P < 0.05), similar mean total hospitalization costs ($13,715 vs. $13,419, P = 0.91), intubation (0 vs. 1.1%, P = 0.59), and in-hospital mortality (4.4 vs. 3.9%, P = 0.77). The adjusted odds for ICU admission (adjusted odds ratio [_aOR] = 0.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.31, 1.16; P = 0.13), 30-day all-cause readmission (_aOR = 0.17; 95% CI:0.02, 1.24; P = 0.08), and in-hospital mortality (_aOR = 1.15; 95% CI:0.37, 3.58, P = 0.81) were statistically similar between comparison groups.

Conclusion: The use of IV BRV may provide an alternative to IV LEV for management of seizures in hospital setting due to lower or comparable prevalence of ICU admission, intubation, and 30-day seizure-related readmission. Additional studies with greater statistical power are needed to confirm these findings.

Overnight switch from levetiracetam to brivaracetam. Safety and tolerability

•

Brivaracetam has a more selective action to SV2A binding site than levetiracetam.

•

Neuropsychological adverse events improved in 76% of patients that switched.

•

An overnight switch is well-tolerated in our relatively small Spanish sample.

Brivaracetam is a newer antiseizure medication than levetiracetam. It has a more selective action on the synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A binding site, and it seems to provide a more favorable neuropsychiatric profile. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and tolerability of an overnight switch from levetiracetam to brivaracetam.

This was a retrospective descriptive study including patients with epilepsy treated with levetiracetam, who switched due to inefficacy or previous adverse events (AEs). In total, forty-one patients were included (mean age 40.9 ± 17.8 years, women 48.8%). Focal epilepsy represented 75.6% (n = 31) of patients (structural cause [n = 25], unknown cause [n = 6]). Four patients had idiopathic generalized epilepsy, two had developmental and epileptic encephalopathy and four patients were unclassified. The reason to start brivaracetam was inefficacy in 53.7% (n = 22), AEs in 65.9% (25/27 neuropsychiatric) and both in 19.5% (n = 8). Brivaracetam-related AEs were reported in 24.4%. Neuropsychological AEs associated with the previous use of levetiracetam improved in 76% of patients. Treatment was discontinued in 19.5% patients. Patients’ reported seizure frequency improved, worsened and remained stable in 26.8%, 12.2%, and 61.0% of the cases, respectively.

An overnight switching to brivaracetam is safe and well tolerated. This treatment can improve levetiracetam-related neuropsychiatric AEs.

Long-term efficacy, tolerability, and retention of brivaracetam in epilepsy treatment: A longitudinal multicenter study with up to 5 years of follow-up

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to evaluate the long-term efficacy, retention, and tolerability of add-on brivaracetam (BRV) in clinical practice.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective cohort study recruited all patients who initiated BRV between February and November 2016, with observation until February 2021.

RESULTS

Long-term data for 262 patients (mean age = 40 years, range = 5-81 years, 129 men) were analyzed, including 227 (87%) diagnosed with focal epilepsy, 19 (7%) with genetic generalized epilepsy, and 16 (6%) with other or unclassified epilepsy syndromes. Only 26 (10%) patients had never received levetiracetam (LEV), whereas 133 (50.8%) were switched from LEV. The length of BRV exposure ranged from 1 day to 5 years, with a median retention time of 1.6 years, resulting in a total BRV exposure time of 6829 months (569 years). The retention rate was 61.1% at 12 months, with a reported efficacy of 33.1% (79/239; 50% responder rate, 23 patients lost-to-follow-up), including 10.9% reported as seizure-free. The retention rate for the entire study period was 50.8%, and at last follow-up, 133 patients were receiving BRV at a mean dose of 222 ± 104 mg (median = 200, range = 25-400), including 52 (39.1%) who exceeded the recommended upper dose of 200 mg. Fewer concomitant antiseizure medications and switching from LEV to BRV correlated with better short-term responses, but no investigated parameters correlated with positive long-term outcomes. BRV was discontinued in 63 (24%) patients due to insufficient efficacy, in 29 (11%) for psychobehavioral adverse events, in 25 (10%) for other adverse events, and in 24 (9%) for other reasons.

SIGNIFICANCE

BRV showed a clinically useful 50% responder rate of 33% at 12 months and overall retention of >50%, despite 90% of included patients having previous LEV exposure. BRV was well tolerated; however, psychobehavioral adverse events occurred in one out of 10 patients. Although we identified short-term response and retention predictors, we could not identify significant predictors for long-term outcomes.

Efficacy of Brivaracetam in children with epilepsy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy, tolerance, and safety of BRV in children with epilepsy.

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients with epilepsy who received treatment with BRV before age 16 years and underwent a minimum follow-up of 3 months.

METHOD AND RESULTS

Sixty-six patients were included in the study. Patients received BRV at a mean age of 8.8 years (range 1-16 years). The majority (93.4 %) had refractory epilepsy, 27 with epileptic encephalopathy. The median maximum dose used was 4.3 mg/kg/day. In 30.3 % of the cases, seizure frequency was reduced by over 50 %, and 9 % remained seizure-free. Greater efficacy was observed in those patients who received higher doses and when a direct switch from levetiracetam (LEV) to BRV was performed. The ineffectiveness of LEV was not related to a failure to respond to BRV treatment. Side effects were identified in 24.2 % of the cases, the most frequent being irritability and drowsiness.

CONCLUSIONS

BRV appears to be an effective, safe, and well-tolerated AED in children with refractory epilepsy.

Which treatment strategy in patients with epilepsy with focal seizures uncontrolled by the first anti-seizure medication?

There is no definite proven or accepted strategy in the management of patients with focal epilepsy uncontrolled by the first anti-seizure medication (ASM). Clinical studies failed to find a significant difference in efficacy or tolerability between alternative monotherapy and/or adjunctive therapy in these patients. A second ASM is often added, the efficacy of the combination is assessed, and the dose of the first drug can be gradually reduced and withdrawn. If seizures recur, the effective combination therapy can be reinstated. In this review, we discussed experimental and clinical data about the efficacy and tolerability of the most frequently used combinations of ASMs. Animal studies suggested that the most favorable combinations are those between ASMs with different or multiple mechanisms of action, whereas combining drugs with similar pharmacodynamic properties is often associated with additive or infra-additive efficacy and additive or synergistic toxicity. Clinical studies have shown that levetiracetam (LEV) can be favorably combined with the sodium channel blockers (SCBs) lacosamide (LCM) and lamotrigine (LTG). Lamotrigine is particularly effective when associated with valproate (VPA) and possibly with LEV and topiramate (TPM). Carbamazepine (CBZ) has negative pharmacokinetic interactions with several ASMs and should not be combined with other SCBs; it could be effectively and safely combined with gabapentin (GBP) and LEV. Valproic acid has enzyme inhibiting properties and can be cautiously used with SCBs; its combination with TPM or zonisamide (ZNS) may be associated with higher toxicity.

[Epilepsy in the aged : Challenges in diagnostics and treatment]

Epilepsy is the third most frequent neurological disorder in aged patients after stroke and dementia. The incidence of epilepsy increases with age with the highest rates in patients ≥ 65 years old. Due to demographic changes the number of aged patients with epilepsy is expected to increase further in the coming years. The leading cause of new onset epilepsy in aged patients is cerebrovascular disease followed by dementia. The recognition of seizures in aged patients is often delayed. Status epilepticus occurs more frequently in aged patients and is associated with a high mortality and morbidity. Antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment of aged patients is complicated by comorbidities and polypharmacy and AEDs with a low interaction profile and high tolerability should be selected. Levetiracetam and lamotrigine are the AEDs of choice due to low interactions and good tolerability.

Psychiatric disorders of the combination of levetiracetam either with lacosamide or perampanel: a retrospective cohort study

Background The number of patients with epilepsy receiving perampanel or lacosamide as an add-on treatment following levetiracetam treatment has increased. Although levetiracetam causes psychiatric disorders, it is unclear whether they occur with the combined use of these antiepileptic drugs. Objective To determine the frequency of psychiatric disorders in patients received lacosamide or perampanel in combination with levetiracetam. Setting A single-center retrospective cohort study. Method Patients who received levetiracetam + lacosamide or levetiracetam + perampanel were selected. Medical records from the start of combination therapy contained characteristics of patients and the incidence of psychiatric disorders. Main outcome measure The frequency of psychiatric disorders, the time to onset, dose reduction or discontinuation following psychiatric disorders, and the clinical course following disorder onset. Results Forty-four patients used levetiracetam + lacosamide and 50 used levetiracetam + perampanel. The incidence of psychiatric disorders was significantly lower (p < 0.001) with levetiracetam + lacosamide (6.8%) than with levetiracetam + perampanel (44%). The incidence of affect lability was significantly higher with levetiracetam + perampanel than with levetiracetam + lacosamide (p = 0.018). The time to the onset of psychiatric disorders was within 1 month of dose initiation or increase in one case (33.3%) with levetiracetam + lacosamide and 16 cases (72.7%) with levetiracetam + perampanel. There was no significant difference in clinical characteristics and antiepileptic drug dosages owing to the presence or absence of psychiatric disorders. Conclusion As the frequency of psychiatric disorders was higher with levetiracetam + perampanel therapy, levetiracetam + lacosamide may be preferable. These disorders tended to develop within 1 month of therapy and were not dose-dependent. Antiepileptic drugs should be cautiously prescribed to avoid psychiatric disorders.

Brivaracetam Retention Rate and Seizure Outcomes in Patients with Drug-Resistant Focal Epilepsy Included in the Medical Need Program in Belgium: A Real-World, Multicenter, Chart Review

Background

New treatments are needed for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy to improve seizure control without decreasing quality of life.

Objective

In Belgium, a Medical Need Program (MNP) was initiated to make a new antiepileptic drug (brivaracetam; high-affinity synaptic vesicle protein 2A ligand) available as adjunctive therapy to treat focal seizures in patients failing treatment with three or more different antiepileptic drugs. This is a real-world chart review of the majority of patients (71%) enrolled in the MNP.

Patients and Methods

Retention and seizure outcomes of brivaracetam adjunctive treatment were evaluated in 175 patients aged ≥ 16 years enrolled in the MNP between June 2016 and May 2017 at six centers; 95.4% were previously/concomitantly treated with levetiracetam. Safety events data were also collected.

Results

In this highly drug-resistant population, 85.8%, 73.9%, and 64.9% of patients remained on brivaracetam, while seizure frequency decreased from baseline in 32.0%, 37.1%, and 37.3% of patients after 3, 6, and 9 months’ treatment, respectively. Patients achieving 3-month seizure freedom increased from 3.2% after 3 months’ treatment to 10.2% and 10.7% after 6 and 9 months’ treatment, respectively. Six-month seizure freedom was achieved by 5.7% of patients at any time. Qualitative evaluation of seizures by physicians demonstrated 44.2%, 38.8%, and 43.2% of patients improved and 42.8%, 50.9%, and 50.6% remained unchanged during 3, 6, and 9 months’ follow-up, respectively. No safety signals were identified.

Conclusions

Retention was high during 9 months of brivaracetam treatment in drug-resistant patients, including those previously/concomitantly treated with levetiracetam; 3-month seizure freedom increased from 3.2% after 3 months to 10.7% after 9 months of treatment.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40801-021-00246-7.

Clinical and Electroencephalography Assessment of the Effects of Brivaracetam in the Treatment of Drug-Resistant Focal Epilepsy

Introduction: Our aim was to evaluate the clinical and electroencephalographic effects of brivaracetam (BRV) in patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. BRV is a new antiepileptic drug (AED) with a high affinity for vesicle protein 2A (SV2A) and recently approved as adjunctive therapy for focal onset seizures. Methods: In this observational study of six-month duration, BRV (50-200 mg) was administered to 76 patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, who were ≥16-year-old and who suffered from daily, weekly, monthly and yearly recurrent seizures. At baseline and after six months of follow-up, we performed a neurological visit, neuropsychological tests: Quality of life in epilepsy-31 (QOLIE31), Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Intrapersonal Emotional Quotient (IEQ) and an electroencephalogram (EEG; inspective and quantitative analysis). Twenty-four patients underwent an overnight switch from levetiracetam (LEV) to BRV. Results: Seizure frequency of the 54 patients remaining at six months was reduced >50% in 29.6% of cases (responders), <50% in 31.5% (non-responders 1), while it remained unchanged in 38.8% (non-responders 2). Twenty-nine percent of patients early discontinued BRV because of lack of efficacy or minor adverse effects (AEs) like irritability, asthenia or headache. Neuropsychological tests in 28 patients demonstrated a significant improvement in I-EPI scores (p=0.04). Comparable results have been found in the subgroup of patients who switched from LEV to BRV. The EEG quantitative analysis showed a significant reduction of alpha absolute power at six months (p=0.03). Theta band power resulted significantly superior in non-responders than in responders (p=0.03). Furthermore, the δ+θ/α+β index resulted more elevated in patients with AEs than in patients without. Conclusions: BRV showed discrete results in terms of efficacy, safety and tolerability, with a good behavioural profile. BRV reduces the power of the alpha band, in correlation with its sedative effects but not with its minor efficacy. Furthermore, the increase in theta band power can be considered as a predictor of scarce response to treatment, while an increase in the δ+θ/α+β index could be a possible predictor of AEs occurrence.

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.

Depression, anxiety levels and sleep quality indexes among the spouses of people with epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Psychiatric problems and sleep disturbances are comorbidities that are frequently encountered among people with epilepsy. However, their presence among the spouses of peoples with epilepsy remains to be elucidated.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the spouses of people with epilepsy (PWE), with and without a history of seizures during sleep, in terms of depression, anxiety and sleep quality.

METHODS

This prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted in three groups of 18 to 65-year-olds. Group 1 consisted of healthy spouses of 127 healthy volunteers without any known neurological disease; group 2 comprised spouses of 63 PWE who had no history of seizure during sleep; and group 3 consisted of spouses of 63 PWE who had a history of at least one seizure during sleep in the course of the previous year. Questionnaires seeking demographic data and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Beck Depression Inventory and Beck Anxiety Inventory were applied to all participants.

RESULTS

The depression scores of the group of spouses of PWE were higher than those of the control group and were higher in group 3 than in group 2 (p = 0.017). The anxiety scores of the group of spouses of PWE were significantly higher than those of the control group, but no difference in anxiety scores was found between group 2 and group 3 (p = 0.170). The mean PSQI score of group 3 was higher than that of group 2 (p = 0.029). However, regression analyses did not show any difference between these groups.

CONCLUSION

We found that the PSQI scores, which reflected sleep quality, were higher among the spouses of PWE who had seizures during sleep and who had more severe epilepsy.

Behavioral adverse events with brivaracetam, levetiracetam, perampanel, and topiramate: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To understand the currently available post-marketing real-world evidence of the incidences of and discontinuations due to the BAEs of irritability, anger, and aggression in people with epilepsy (PWE) treated with the anti-seizure medications (ASMs) brivaracetam (BRV), levetiracetam (LEV), perampanel (PER), and topiramate (TPM), as well as behavioral adverse events (BAEs) in PWE switching from LEV to BRV.

METHODS

A systematic review of published literature using the Cochrane Library, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Embase was performed to identify retrospective and prospective observational studies reporting the incidence of irritability, anger, or aggression with BRV, LEV, PER, or TPM in PWE. The incidences of these BAEs and the rates of discontinuation due to each were categorized by ASM, and where possible, weighted means were calculated but not statistically assessed. Behavioral and psychiatric adverse events in PWE switching from LEV to BRV were summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

A total of 1500 records were identified in the searches. Of these, 44 published articles reporting 42 studies met the study criteria and were included in the data synthesis, 7 studies were identified in the clinical trial database, and 5 studies included PWE switching from LEV to BRV. Studies included a variety of methods, study populations, and definitions of BAEs. While a wide range of results was reported across studies, weighted mean incidences were 5.6% for BRV, 9.9% for LEV, 12.3% for PER, and 3.1% for TPM for irritability; 3.3%* for BRV, 2.5% for LEV, 2.0% for PER, and 0.2%* for TPM for anger; and 2.5% for BRV, 2.6% for LEV, 4.4% for PER, and 0.5%* for TPM for aggression. Weighted mean discontinuation rates were 0.8%* for BRV, 3.4% for LEV, 3.0% for PER, and 2.2% for TPM for irritability and 0.8%* for BRV, 2.4% for LEV, 9.2% for PER, and 1.2%* for TPM for aggression. There were no discontinuations for anger. Switching from LEV to BRV led to improvement in BAEs in 33.3% to 83.0% of patients (weighted mean, 66.6%). *Denotes only 1 study.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review characterizes the incidences of irritability, anger, and aggression with BRV, LEV, PER, and TPM, and it provides robust real-world evidence demonstrating that switching from LEV to BRV may improve BAEs. While additional data remain valuable due to differences in methodology (which make comparisons difficult), these results improve understanding of the real-world incidences of discontinuations due to these BAEs in clinical practice and can aid in discussions and treatment decision-making with PWE.

Adjunctive brivaracetam - A prospective audit of outcomes from an epilepsy clinic

OBJECTIVE

Brivaracetam (BRV), is licensed in Europe as adjunctive treatment, and in the United States of America as adjunctive and monotherapy for focal seizures with or without secondary generalization in adults, adolescents, and children ≥4 years. As BRV becomes available globally, this prospective audit was undertaken to gain an understanding of how best to use the anti-seizure medication (ASM) in the everyday clinical setting.

METHODS

Brivaracetam was started by patients ≥16 years with difficult-to-control epilepsy at Glasgow epilepsy clinics following a 12-week baseline on stable ASM doses. Target dosing was 200 mg/day. Review occurred every 12-16 weeks until 1 of 4 end-points occurred: seizure freedom for ≥6 months on a given BRV dose; ≥50% (responder) or <50% (marginal benefit) seizure reduction over 6 months compared with baseline on the highest tolerated BRV dose; withdrawal of BRV due to lack of efficacy, adverse effects, or both.

RESULTS

An end-point has been reached by 108 patients (38 men, 70 women; median age 45 years), 88 with focal-onset seizures and 20 with genetic generalized epilepsies (GGEs). Of these, 71 (65.7%) have benefitted from BRV, including 23 (21.3%) who have been seizure free for ≥6 months on a median BRV dose of 100 mg/day (range 25-200 mg/day). A further 18 (16.7%) were classified as responders and 30 (27.8%) showed marginal benefit. Brivaracetam benefitted 16 (80.0%) patients with GGEs, 5 becoming seizure free. Generalized tonic-clonic seizures, absences, and myoclonic seizures were completely controlled in 4 (25%) patients with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy. Brivaracetam monotherapy was established in 12 patients, 3 of whom had GGEs. Levetiracetam (LEV) had previously been prescribed in 53 patients who had discontinued the ASM due to lack of efficacy, side effects, or both. Adjunctive BRV benefitted 34 (64.2%) of these patients. Brivaracetam was withdrawn in 37 (34.3%) patients, (23 side effects, 4 lack of efficacy, 10 both). Sedation was the commonest side effect leading to BRV withdrawal (n = 14; 13.0%). Psychiatric side effects resulted in BRV discontinuation in 9 (8.3%) patients.

SIGNIFICANCE

Brivaracetam has efficacy for a range of seizure types and syndromes in a wide range of doses. The ASM can produce positive outcomes in patients who have failed LEV. Post-marketing studies remain a useful tool to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of novel ASMs in everyday clinical practice.

Α Multicenter Retrospective Study Evaluating Brivaracetam in the Treatment of Epilepsies in Clinical Practice

Brivaracetam (BRV) is the latest approved antiepileptic drug. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of BRV in everyday clinical practice. In this retrospective, observational, multicenter study, data from epilepsy patients receiving BRV from January 2018 to July 2019 were analyzed. Patients with age ≥16 suffering from any type of epilepsy and having at least one follow up encounter after dose titration were included. 156 consecutive patients were included in the study. The mean age was 40 (16-84 years) and the mean duration of epilepsy was 21 years. Of the 156 patients, 81% were diagnosed with focal-onset seizures, 16% with generalized seizures, while 3% suffered from unclassified seizures. Nine patients received BRV as monotherapy as a switching therapy. At the first follow up visit, seizure cessation was achieved in 56 (36%) patients and the rate of ≥50% responders was 36%. Twenty four patients (15%) remained unchanged; six patients (4%) were recorded with increased seizure frequency, while the remaining 9% had a response of less than 50%. Twenty-six patients (17%) showed clinically significant adverse events, but none were life threatening. Brivaracetam seems to be an effective, easy to use and safe antiepileptic drug in the clinical setting.

Comparative economic outcomes in patients with focal seizures initiating eslicarbazepine acetate versus brivaracetam as their first adjunctive ASD

AIMS

To study the association between initiation of first adjunctive therapy with eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) vs. brivaracetam (BRV) on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and charges among patients with treated focal seizures (FS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Symphony Health's Integrated Dataverse (IDV) claims data (1 April 2015 to 30 June 2018) were used to identify two cohorts as first adjunctive therapy with ESL or BRV following a generic anti-seizure drug (ASD). The index date was the earliest claim for a new ESL or BRV prescription. Key inclusion criteria were only 1 generic ASD in the 12 months before the index date; ≥1 medical claim with an FS diagnosis. Unit of analysis was the 90-day person-time-block. Changes in HCRU and charges were assessed using a difference-in-differences framework. Both unadjusted and adjusted analyses were performed. The adjusted model utilized person-specific fixed effects and propensity score-based weighting to control for differences in baseline covariates. Bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for charge outcomes.

RESULTS

208 and 137 patients initiated first adjunctive therapy with ESL (43.7 years, 51.9% female) or BRV (39.3 years, 51.8% female). Patients in the ESL cohort had numerically larger reductions in all-cause and FS-related inpatient hospitalizations and outpatient visits and FS-related emergency department visits. Compared to patients initiating BRV, patients treated with ESL had significantly larger reductions in total charges (-$3,446, CI: -$13,716, -$425), all-cause (-$3,166, CI: -$13,991, -$323) and FS-related (-$2,969, CI: -$21,547, -$842) medical charges, all-cause (-$3,397, CI: -$15,676, -$818) and FS-related (-$2,863, CI: -$19,707, -$787) outpatient charges, and non-ASD-related prescription charges (-$420, CI: -$1,058, -$78).

LIMITATIONS

Claims may be missing, or miscoded; outcomes may be influenced by variables not accounted for in the analysis; only information on submitted charges was included.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with FS, initiation of first adjunctive therapy with ESL was associated with significantly larger reductions in medical and non-ASD-related prescriptions charges compared to BRV.

Potential role of brivaracetam in pediatric epilepsy

Brivaracetam (BRV) is a new antiseizure medication (ASM) that is currently approved for adjunctive treatment in patients with focal onset seizures. Similarly to levetiracetam (LEV), BRV works by binding SV2A vesicles with a high affinity and a linear pharmacokinetic profile. Retrospective studies and randomized clinical trials have already proven the efficacy of BRV, even in patients who failed treatment with LEV. Most studies about the efficacy and tolerability conducted so far were performed in adult cohorts, whereas few studies have been performed in children; however, BRV was proven to be a useful ASM for pediatric focal epilepsies, with fewer studies and conflicting results among patients with generalized epilepsies and epileptic syndromes. Retention rates were high in the cohorts analyzed, and no serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in the majority of patients, with somnolence, drowsiness, irritability, aggression, and decreased appetite being the most frequently reported side effects. Although there are few original papers published on the subject so far, the analysis of the literature data demonstrated the efficacy and safety of BRV in pediatric patients, with more evidence for children aged 4-16 years with an onset of focal seizures. However, a positive response was also achieved in patients affected by encephalopathic epilepsies (eg, Jeavons' epilepsy, Dravet syndrome, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, and juvenile myoclonic epilepsy), and ongoing studies are now testing BRV in order to widen its application to other forms of epilepsy and to test its effectiveness when used in monotherapy. This review aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the literature surrounding the efficacy and tolerability of BRV for pediatric patients.

New anti-seizure medication for elderly epilepsy patients - a critical narrative review

Introduction: The number of elderly patients with epilepsy is growing in resource rich countries due to demographic changes and increased longevity. Management in these patients is challenging as underlying etiology, co-morbidities, polypharmacy, age-related pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes need to be considered.Areas covered: Lacosamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, brivaracetam, and perampanel have been approved in the USA and Europe for monotherapy and/or adjunctive treatment of seizures in the last few years. The authors review the pharmacological properties and safety profile of these drugs and provide recommendations for their use in in the elderly.Expert opinion: There are only limited data available on more recent antiseizure medications (ASMs). Drugs with a low risk of interaction (lacosamide, brivaracetam) are preferred choices. Once daily formulations (perampanel and eslicarbazepine acetate) have the advantage of increased compliance. Intravenous formulations (brivaracetam and lacosamide) are useful in emergency situations and in patients who have difficulties to swallow. Dose adjustments are necessary for all ASMs used in the elderly with slow titration and lower target doses than in the regulatory trials. The adverse event profile does not significantly differ from that found in the general adult population.

Brivaracetam substituting other antiepileptic treatments: Results of a retrospective study in German epilepsy centers

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the success of initiation of adjunctive brivaracetam in patients who required a change in antiepileptic drug (AED) regimen and substituted at least one AED with brivaracetam.

METHODS

In this retrospective noninterventional study conducted in specialized epilepsy centers across Germany, patients initiated adjunctive brivaracetam between February 15, 2016, and August 31, 2016, as part of an intended change in AED regimen. The primary effectiveness variable was the proportion of patients who continued on brivaracetam after 3 months, and withdrew at least one AED either before or within 6 months after brivaracetam initiation.

RESULTS

Five hundred and six patients had at least one brivaracetam dose and were included in the safety set (SS). Four hundred and seventy patients started to reduce the dose of one AED before/after brivaracetam initiation, had at least one concomitant AED at brivaracetam initiation, and were included in the full analysis set (FAS) for effectiveness analyses. At baseline, patients had a median of seven lifetime AEDs and a median of 3.8 seizures/28 days. In the SS, 85.2% of patients withdrew one AED before/after initiation of brivaracetam, most commonly levetiracetam (49.4%). 46.2% of patients substituted another AED with brivaracetam within 24 hours (fast withdrawal). The proportions of patients (FAS) who continued on brivaracetam after 3 and 6 months and withdrew one AED were 75.5% and 46.6%, respectively. After 6 months, 32.1% of patients were 50% responders; 13.0% were seizure-free. In the SS, 34.6% of patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); 21.9% had TEAEs that were assessed by the treating physician as drug-related. Incidences of behavioral AEs before (3-month baseline) and after brivaracetam initiation in patients who withdrew levetiracetam were 19.2% and 8.0%, respectively (5.0% and 7.7% in patients who withdrew other AEDs).

SIGNIFICANCE

Brivaracetam was effective and well-tolerated in patients who required a change in AED drug regimen and initiated adjunctive brivaracetam in German clinical practice.