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

Efficacy and tolerability of Brivaracetam in people with intellectual disability compared to those without intellectual disability

INTRODUCTION

In England, nearly a quarter of people with intellectual disability (PwID) have epilepsy. Though 70 % of PwID have pharmaco-resistant seizures only 10 % are prescribed anti-seizure medication (ASMs) licenced for pharmaco-resistance. Brivaracetam (BRV) licenced in 2016 has had nine post-marketing studies involving PwID. These studies are limited either by lack of controls or not looking at outcomes based on differing levels of ID severity. This study looks at evidence comparing effectiveness and side-effects in PwID to those without ID prescribed Brivaracetam (BRV).

METHODS

Pooled case note data for patients prescribed BRV (2016-2022) at 12 UK NHS Trusts were analysed. Demographics, starting and maximum dose, side-effects, dropouts and seizure frequency between ID (mild vs. moderate-profound (M/P)) and general population for a 12-month period were compared. Descriptive analysis, Mann-Whitney, Fisher's exact and logistic regression methods were employed.

RESULTS

37 PwID (mild 17 M/P 20) were compared to 102 without ID. Mean start and maximum dose was lower for PwID than non-ID. Mean maximum dose reduced slightly with ID severity. No difference was found between ID and non-ID or between ID groups (Mild vs M/P) in BRV's efficacy i.e. >50 % seizure reduction or tolerability. Mental and behavioural side-effects were more prevalent for PwID (27.0 % ID, 17.6 % no ID) but not significantly higher (P = 0.441) or associated with ID severity (p = 0.255).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study on BRV, which compares ID cohorts with differing severity and non-ID. Efficacy, tolerability and side-effects reported are similar across differing ID severity to those with no ID.

A prospective, observational, multicentre study to evaluate the efficacy of brivaracetam as adjuvant therapy for epilepsy: The Bravo study

Background

Epilepsy is a persistent tendency to experience epileptic seizures and can lead to various neurobiological disorders, with an elevated risk of premature mortality. This study evaluates the efficacy of brivaracetam adjuvant therapy in patients with epilepsy.

Methods

A prospective observational multicentre study that was conducted in Pakistan from March to September 2022, by using a non-probability convenience sampling technique. The population consisted of 543 individuals with a diagnosis of epilepsy for whom adjunctive brivaracetam (Brivera; manufactured by Helix Pharma Pvt Ltd., Sindh, Pakistan) was recommended by the treating physician. The research sample was drawn from various private neurology clinics of Karachi, Lahore, Rawalpindi, Islamabad and Peshawar. Data originating from routine patient visits, and assessments at three study time points, were recorded in the study case report form.

Results

Across 18 clinical sites, 543 individuals participated, with a mean age of 32.9 years. The most prescribed dosages were 50 mg BD, followed by 100 mg BD. Notably, brivaracetam combined with divalproex sodium was the most prevalent treatment, followed by brivaracetam with levetiracetam. At both the 14th and 90th day assessments, a significant reduction in seizure frequency was observed, with 63.1% of individuals showing a favourable response by day 90. Treatment-naive individuals exhibited higher rates of seizure freedom and response compared with treatment-resistant individuals.

Conclusions

The study demonstrates the effectiveness of brivaracetam combination therapy in epilepsy management, with notable reductions in seizure frequency and favourable clinical responses observed, particularly in treatment-naive individuals.

A real-world comparison among third-generation antiseizure medications: Results from the COMPARE study

OBJECTIVE

There are few comparative data on the third-generation antiseizure medications (ASMs). We aimed to assess and compare the effectiveness of brivaracetam (BRV), eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), lacosamide (LCM), and perampanel (PER) in people with epilepsy (PWE). Efficacy and tolerability were compared as secondary objectives.

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective study collected data from 22 Italian neurology/epilepsy centers. All adult PWE who started add-on treatment with one of the studied ASMs between January 2018 and October 2021 were included. Retention rate was established as effectiveness measure and described using Kaplan-Meier curves and the best fitting survival model. The responder status and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) were used to evaluate efficacy and safety, respectively. The odds of AEs and drug efficacy were estimated by two multilevel logistic models.

RESULTS

A total of 960 patients (52.92% females, median age = 43 years) met the inclusion criteria. They mainly suffered from structural epilepsy (52.29%) with monthly (46.2%) focal seizures (69.58%). Compared with LCM, all the studied ASMs had a higher dropout risk, statistically significant in the BRV levetiracetam (LEV)-naïve (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17-3.29) and PER groups (HR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.06-2.55). Women were at higher risk of discontinuing ESL (HR = 5.33, 95% CI = 1.71-16.61), as well as PER-treated patients with unknown epilepsy etiology versus those with structural etiology (HR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.05-2.88). BRV with prior LEV therapy showed lower odds of efficacy (odds ratio [OR] = .08, 95% CI = .01-.48) versus LCM, whereas a higher efficacy was observed in women treated with BRV and LEV-naïve (OR = 10.32, 95% CI = 1.55-68.78) versus men. PER (OR = 6.93, 95% CI = 3.32-14.44) and BRV in LEV-naïve patients (OR = 6.80, 95% CI = 2.64-17.52) had a higher chance of AEs than LCM.

SIGNIFICANCE

Comparative evidence from real-world studies may help clinicians to tailor treatments according to patients' demographic and clinical characteristics.

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.

Real-world analysis of retention on cenobamate in patients with epilepsy in the United States

BACKGROUND

This retrospective, observational study used US claims data to assess retention rates on cenobamate compared with four branded antiseizure medications (ASMs) in patients with epilepsy.

METHODS

Adults (≥18 years) with prevalent epilepsy (ICD-10 code G40.xx) and ≥ 1 prescription for cenobamate or any of the newer branded ASMs (brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, or perampanel) between May 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021 were identified from the HealthVerity Marketplace database. At least 360 days of continuous enrollment was required before and after the index date (Day 1 of initiating cenobamate or branded ASM). Patients were followed until cessation of cenobamate or branded ASM or the end of data collection using Kaplan-Meier methods. Retention was compared between cenobamate and the branded ASMs (both as a group and individually) using Chi-square tests.

RESULTS

In total, 4109 patients were included (195 cenobamate; 3914 branded ASMs). A higher proportion of patients in the cenobamate group compared with the branded ASMs group had concurrent focal and generalized epilepsy (65.6% vs 40.0%) and were on ≥ 3 concomitant ASMs (48.2% vs 12.8%) at the index date. Median time to discontinuation (i.e., the time that half the patients discontinued) was not quite reached after 12 months in the cenobamate group (50.3% of patients remained on cenobamate) and was 7.7 months in the branded ASMs group. Retention was significantly higher with cenobamate vs the branded ASMs group (p = 0.04545) and vs the individual ASMs lacosamide (p = 0.03044) and perampanel (p = 0.01558). Twelve-month retention rates (95% confidence intervals) were 50.3% (43.1%-57.0%) for cenobamate, 40.5% (38.9%-42.0%) for branded ASMs overall, 42.3% (38.6%-46.0%) for brivaracetam, 44.1% (39.2%-49.0%) for eslicarbazepine, 39.9% (38.0%-41.8%) for lacosamide, and 36.8% (31.9%-41.8%) for perampanel.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world analysis, retention was significantly higher with cenobamate vs a pooled group of four branded ASMs despite a greater frequency of patients in the cenobamate group having characteristics of more difficult-to-treat epilepsy.

Adjunctive brivaracetam and sustained seizure frequency reduction in very active focal epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the effectiveness of brivaracetam (BRV) according to baseline seizure frequency and past treatment history in subjects with focal epilepsy who were included in the Brivaracetam Add-On First Italian Network Study (BRIVAFIRST).

METHODS

BRIVAFIRST was a 12-month retrospective, multicenter study including adults prescribed adjunctive BRV. Study outcomes included sustained seizure response (SSR), sustained seizure freedom (SSF), and the rates of treatment discontinuation and adverse events (AEs). Baseline seizure frequency was stratified as <5, 5-20, and >20 seizures per month, and the number of prior antiseizure medications (ASMs) as <5 and ≥6.

RESULTS

A total of 994 participants were included. During the 1-year study period, SSR was reached by 45.8%, 39.3%, and 22.6% of subjects with a baseline frequency of <5, 5-20, and >20 seizures per month (p < .001); the corresponding figures for the SSF were 23.4%, 9.8%, and 2.8% (p < .001). SSR was reached by 51.2% and 26.5% participants with a history of 1-5 and ≥6 ASMs (p < .001); the corresponding rates of SSF were 24.7% and 4.5% (p < .001). Treatment discontinuation due to lack of efficacy was more common in participants with >20 seizures compared to those with <5 seizures per month (25.8% vs. 9.3%, p < .001), and in participants with history of ≥6 prior ASMs compared to those with history of 1-5 ASMs (19.6% vs. 12.2%, p = .002). There were no differences in the rates of BRV withdrawal due to AEs and the rates of AEs across the groups of participants defined according to the number of seizures at baseline and the number of prior ASMs.

SIGNIFICANCE

The baseline seizure frequency and the number of previous ASMs were predictors of sustained seizure frequency reduction with adjunctive BRV in subjects with focal epilepsy.

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.

Treating Post-stroke Epilepsy in a Patient With Multiple Comorbidities

Stroke is a major cause of seizures and epilepsy in adults. Stroke severity, younger age, hemorrhagic subtype of stroke, and alcohol use have been identified as risk factors for the development of stroke-related epilepsy. Despite being a common complication in stroke survivors, current guidelines do not provide strong recommendations about the optimal treatment of post-stroke seizures. No clear guidance is given about the preferred antiseizure medications (ASMs), primary and secondary prophylaxis, and ASMs withdrawal. The management of older patients is further complicated by the presence of comorbidities, pharmacokinetic alterations, and intake of several medications. We present a case of a 77-year-old man affected by epidermolysis bullosa and diabetes mellitus, who suffered from ischemic stroke and then developed post-stroke seizures. This case shows how complex it is to manage post-stroke seizures in an older patient with multiple comorbidities.

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.

Brivaracetam as Early Add-On Treatment in Patients with Focal Seizures: A Retrospective, Multicenter, Real-World Study

INTRODUCTION

In randomized controlled trials, add-on brivaracetam (BRV) reduced seizure frequency in patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Most real-world research on BRV has focused on refractory epilepsy. The aim of this analysis was to assess the 12-month effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive BRV when used as early or late adjunctive treatment in patients included in the BRIVAracetam add-on First Italian netwoRk Study (BRIVAFIRST).

METHODS

BRIVAFIRST was a 12-month retrospective, multicenter study including adult patients prescribed adjunctive BRV. Effectiveness outcomes included the rates of sustained seizure response, sustained seizure freedom, and treatment discontinuation. Safety and tolerability outcomes included the rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) and the incidence of AEs. Data were compared for patients treated with add-on BRV after 1-2 (early add-on) and ≥ 3 (late add-on) prior antiseizure medications.

RESULTS

A total of 1029 patients with focal epilepsy were included in the study, of whom 176 (17.1%) received BRV as early add-on treatment. The median daily dose of BRV at 12 months was 125 (100-200) mg in the early add-on group and 200 (100-200) in the late add-on group (p < 0.001). Sustained seizure response was reached by 97/161 (60.3%) of patients in the early add-on group and 286/833 (34.3%) of patients in the late add-on group (p < 0.001). Sustained seizure freedom was achieved by 51/161 (31.7%) of patients in the early add-on group and 91/833 (10.9%) of patients in the late add-on group (p < 0.001). During the 1-year study period, 29 (16.5%) patients in the early add-on group and 241 (28.3%) in the late add-on group discontinued BRV (p = 0.001). Adverse events were reported by 38.7% and 28.5% (p = 0.017) of patients who received BRV as early and late add-on treatment, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Brivaracetam was effective and well tolerated both as first add-on and late adjunctive treatment in patients with focal epilepsy.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Adjunctive Brivaracetam in Focal Epilepsy: Real-World Evidence from the BRIVAracetam add-on First Italian netwoRk STudy (BRIVAFIRST)

BACKGROUND

In randomized controlled trials, add-on brivaracetam (BRV) reduced seizure frequency in patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Studies performed in a naturalistic setting are a useful complement to characterize the drug profile.

OBJECTIVE

This multicentre study assessed the effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive BRV in a large population of patients with focal epilepsy in the context of real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

The BRIVAFIRST (BRIVAracetam add-on First Italian netwoRk STudy) was a retrospective, multicentre study including adult patients prescribed adjunctive BRV. Patients with focal epilepsy and 12-month follow-up were considered. Main outcomes included the rates of seizure-freedom, seizure response (≥ 50% reduction in baseline seizure frequency), and treatment discontinuation. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was also considered. Analyses by levetiracetam (LEV) status and concomitant use of strong enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications (EiASMs) and sodium channel blockers (SCBs) were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1029 patients with a median age of 45 years (33-56) was included. At 12 months, 169 (16.4%) patients were seizure-free and 383 (37.2%) were seizure responders. The rate of seizure freedom was 22.3% in LEV-naive patients, 7.1% in patients with prior LEV use and discontinuation due to insufficient efficacy, and 31.2% in patients with prior LEV use and discontinuation due to AEs (p < 0.001); the corresponding values for ≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction were 47.9%, 29.7%, and 42.8% (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in seizure freedom and seizure response rates by use of strong EiASMs. The rates of seizure freedom (20.0% vs. 16.6%;  p = 0.341) and seizure response (39.7% vs. 26.9%; p = 0.006) were higher in patients receiving SCBs than those not receiving SCBs; 265 (25.8%) patients discontinued BRV. AEs were reported by 30.1% of patients, and were less common in patients treated with BRV and concomitant SCBs than those not treated with SCBs (28.9% vs. 39.8%; p = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

The BRIVAFIRST provided real-world evidence on the effectiveness of BRV in patients with focal epilepsy irrespective of LEV history and concomitant ASMs, and suggested favourable therapeutic combinations.

Brivaracetam as add-on treatment in focal epilepsy: A real-world time-based analysis

The study assessed the clinical response to add-on brivaracetam (BRV) in real-world practice by means of time-to-baseline seizure count methodology. Patients with focal epilepsy who were prescribed add-on BRV were identified. Primary endpoint was the time-to-baseline seizure count defined as the number of days until each patient experienced the number of focal seizures that occurred in the 90 days before BRV initiation. Subgroup analysis was performed according to levetiracetam (LEV) status (naive vs prior use). Three-hundred eighty-seven patients were included. The overall median time-to-baseline seizure count was 150 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 130-175) days. The median time-to-baseline seizure count was 198 (lower limit of 95% CI = 168) days for LEV-naive patients, 126 (95% CI = 105-150) days for patients with prior LEV use and withdrawal due to insufficient efficacy, and 170 (95% CI = 128-291) days for patients who discontinued LEV due to adverse events (P = .002). The number of prior antiseizure medications (adjusted hazard ratio [_adj HR] = 1.07, 95% CI = 1.02-1.13, P = .009) and baseline monthly seizure frequency (_adj HR = 1.004, 95% CI = 1.001-1.008, P = .028) were independently associated with the primary endpoint. Add-on BRV improved seizure control in LEV-naive and LEV-prior patients. The time-to-baseline seizure count represents an informative endpoint alongside traditional study outcomes and designs.