Postmarketing experience with brivaracetam in the treatment of epilepsies: A multicenter cohort study from Germany

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.

The real-world effectiveness of intravenous brivaracetam as a second-line treatment in status epilepticus

PURPOSE

Status epilepticus (SE) is defined by abnormally prolonged seizures that may lead to brain damage and death. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability (effectiveness) of intravenous brivaracetam (BRV) as a second-line treatment.

METHODS

Twenty-one patients (median age 68 years ± 17.28) were prospectively recruited between June 2019 and December 2022. Patients were treated with BRV (50-200 mg) as a second-line add-on therapy for SE. We evaluated the response of SE to the administration of BRV in terms of SE termination and recurrence of epileptic seizures at 6, 12, and 24 h, also monitoring safety. The first-line therapy was represented by intravenous benzodiazepines (mainly diazepam).

RESULTS

Almost a quarter of patients had generalized seizures, whereas the vast majority (76.2%) presented focal seizures. In 52.4% of patients, the underlying cause was cerebrovascular. Fourteen (66.7%) patients displayed a good early response in the subsequent 6 h. At 12 and 24 h, 8 (38%) and 11 (52.4%) patients, respectively, did not present seizures.

CONCLUSION

The present study highlights the potential of BRV when used as an early add-on therapy in SE, further confirming its good safety profile.

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.

The efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam for the treatment of adult epilepsy: An Australian multi-center retrospective real-world observational cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Assess the efficacy and tolerability of add-on therapy brivaracetam (BRV) in adult patients with epilepsy in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This multi-center retrospective observational cohort study examined all adult patients who commenced on BRV at 11 Australian epilepsy centers between 2017 and 2020. Primary outcomes were seizure response (≥50% reduction in frequency) and seizure freedom 12 months post BRV commencement, and tolerability. We report three approaches to missing data (complete case analysis, CCA; last observation carried forward, LOCF; and intention to treat, ITT). Secondary outcomes included the durability of early BRV response and continuous seizure freedom from BRV initiation. Subgroup analysis examined patients with focal and generalized epilepsy and patients with refractory (≥4 prior ASMs) and highly refractory (≥7 prior ASMs) epilepsy. Outcomes were also assessed at 'personalized' seizure outcome time points based on baseline seizure frequency.

RESULTS

Baseline and follow-up data were available for 228 patients. The mean age was 41.5 years (IQR 30, 50). Most had focal epilepsy (188/228, 82.5%). Median number of previous ASMs was 4 (2, 7), and concomitant ASMs 2 (2, 3). Twelve-month responder rate was: 46.3% using CCA (95% CI 34.0, 58.9); 39.5% using LOCF (33.1, 46.1); and 15.4% using ITT (10.9, 20.7). Twelve-month seizure freedom was: 23.9% using CCA (14.3, 35.9); 24.6% using LOCF (19.1, 30.7); and 7.9% using ITT (4.7, 12.1). The most frequent adverse effects were sedation or cognitive slowing (33/228, 14.5%), irritability or aggression (16/228, 7.0%), and low mood (14/228, 6.1%). Outcomes were similar using continuous outcome definitions and 'personalized' outcome assessment time points. Early responses were highly durable, with 3-month response maintained at all subsequent time points at 83%, and seizure freedom maintained at 85%. Outcomes were similar in focal (n = 187) and generalizsed (n = 25) subgroups. Outcomes were similar in refractory patients (n = 129), but lower in the highly refractory group (n = 62), however improvement with BRV was still observed with 12-month seizure freedom of 8.3% using CCA (1.0, 27), 6.5% using LOCF (1.8, 15.7); and 3.2% using ITT (0.4, 11.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Meaningful real-world responder and seizure freedom rates can be still observed in a refractory epilepsy population. Brivaracetam response can occur early and appears to be maintained with minimal later relapse. The results should be interpreted with caution given the retrospective nature of the study and the quantities of missing data at later time points.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Tolerability and efficacy of adjunctive brivaracetam in adults with focal seizures by concomitant antiseizure medication use: pooled results from three Phase 3 trials

Objective

This study was undertaken to evaluate safety/tolerability and efficacy of adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV) in patients on one or two concomitant antiseizure medications (ASMs) and in patients on one specific concomitant ASM.

Methods

Post hoc analysis was made of double‐blind trials (N01252/NCT00490035, N01253/NCT00464269, and N01358/NCT01261325) in adults with focal seizures randomized to BRV (50–200 mg/day; approved therapeutic dose range for adults) or placebo with concomitant ASM regimen unchanged throughout a 12‐week evaluation period. Outcomes were analyzed in patients on one or two concomitant ASMs, and those on concomitant carbamazepine (CBZ), lamotrigine (LTG), oxcarbazepine (OXC), or valproate (VPA) only.

Results

Patients randomized to BRV with one or two concomitant ASMs, respectively (n = 181/557), reported similar incidences of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs; 68.0%/66.4%), drug‐related TEAEs (41.4%/41.5%), and TEAEs leading to discontinuation (6.6%/5.4%). Respective values for patients randomized to placebo with one or two concomitant ASMs (n = 95/331) were 60.0%/60.7% (TEAEs), 32.6%/30.2% (drug‐related TEAEs), and 2.1%/4.5% (TEAEs leading to discontinuation). The incidences of TEAEs, drug‐related TEAEs, and TEAEs leading to discontinuation by specific concomitant ASM (CBZ, LTG, OXC, VPA) were similar to the overall incidences in patients taking one concomitant ASM. In patients on one or two concomitant ASMs, respectively, 50% responder rates were numerically higher on BRV (42.3%/36.8% [n = 175/511]) versus placebo (18.3%/19.5% [n = 93/298]). Patients with one or two ASMs on BRV (n = 175/509) versus placebo (n = 92/298) also had numerically higher 100% responder rates (BRV, 9.1%/4.5%; placebo, 1.1%/.3%) and seizure freedom (6.9%/3.7%; 1.1%/0). For patients taking concomitant CBZ, LTG, OXC, or VPA, efficacy was numerically higher with BRV (n = 54/30/27/27) versus placebo (n = 34/13/10/14–15; 50% responder rates: BRV, 31.5%/30.0%/40.7%/70.4%; placebo, 17.6%/7.7%/20.0%/33.3%; 100% responder rates: BRV, 5.6%/10.0%/11.1%/11.1%; placebo, 0 for all; seizure freedom: BRV, 3.7%/6.7%/7.4%/11.1%; placebo, 0 for all).

Significance

Therapeutic doses of BRV were efficacious and well tolerated regardless of the number of concomitant ASMs (one or two) or specific concomitant ASM (CBZ, LTG, OXC, VPA).

Trends in antiseizure medication prescription patterns among all adults, women, and older adults with epilepsy: A German longitudinal analysis from 2008 to 2020

INTRODUCTION

The prescription patterns of antiseizure medication (ASM) are subject to new scientific evidence and sociodemographic and practical aspects. This study analyzed trends in ASM prescription patterns among all adults with epilepsy, with special consideration for women of childbearing potential (WOCBP) and older adult (≥65 years old) patients.

METHODS

Data from four questionnaire-based cohort studies, conducted in 2008, 2013, 2016, and 2020, were analyzed for ASM prescription frequencies and common mono- and dual therapy regimens. Statistical comparisons were performed with the Chi-square test and one-way analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Overall, the individual prescription patterns among 1,642 adult patients with epilepsy were analyzed. A significant increase in the prescription frequency of third-generation ASMs, from 59.3% to 84.2% (p = 0.004), was accompanied by a decrease in the frequency of first- and second-generation ASMs (5.4% to 2.1% and 34.9% to 12.6%, respectively). This trend was accompanied by a significant decrease in the use of enzyme-inducing ASMs, from 23.9% to 4.6% (p = 0.004). Among frequently prescribed ASMs, prescriptions of carbamazepine (18.6% to 3.1%, p = 0.004) and valproate (15.4% to 8.7%, p = 0.004) decreased, whereas prescriptions of levetiracetam (18.0% up to 32.4%, p = 0.004) increased significantly. The prescription frequency of lamotrigine remained largely constant at approximately 20% (p = 0.859). Among WOCBP, the prescription frequencies of carbamazepine (11.4% to 2.0%, p = 0.004) and valproate (16.1% to 6.1%, p = 0.004) decreased significantly. Levetiracetam monotherapy prescriptions increased significantly (6.6% to 30.4%, p = 0.004) for WOCBP, whereas lamotrigine prescriptions remained consistent (37.7% to 44.9%, p = 0.911). Among older adult patients, a significant decrease in carbamazepine prescriptions (30.1% to 7.8%, p = 0.025) was the only relevant change in ASM regimens between 2008 and 2020. In patients with genetic generalized epilepsies, levetiracetam was frequently used as an off-label monotherapy (25.0% to 35.3%).

CONCLUSION

These results show a clear trend toward the use of newer and less interacting third-generation ASMs, with lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and lacosamide representing the current ASMs of choice, displacing valproate and carbamazepine over the last decade. In WOCBP, prescription patterns shifted to minimize teratogenic effects, whereas, among older adults, the decrease in carbamazepine use may reflect the avoidance of hyponatremia risks and attempts to reduce the interaction potential with other drugs and ASMs. Levetiracetam is frequently used off-label as a monotherapy in patients with genetic generalized epilepsy.

Brivaracetam and Levetiracetam Suppress Astroglial L-Glutamate Release through Hemichannel via Inhibition of Synaptic Vesicle Protein

To explore the pathophysiological mechanisms of antiseizure and adverse behavioural/psychiatric effects of brivaracetam and levetiracetam, in the present study, we determined the effects of brivaracetam and levetiracetam on astroglial L-glutamate release induced by artificial high-frequency oscillation (HFO) bursts using ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography. Additionally, the effects of brivaracetam and levetiracetam on protein expressions of connexin43 (Cx43) and synaptic vesicle protein 2A (SV2A) in the plasma membrane of primary cultured rat astrocytes were determined using a capillary immunoblotting system. Acutely artificial fast-ripple HFO (500 Hz) burst stimulation use-dependently increased L-glutamate release through Cx43-containing hemichannels without affecting the expression of Cx43 or SV2A in the plasma membrane, whereas acute physiological ripple HFO (200 Hz) stimulation did not affect astroglial L-glutamate release or expression of Cx43 or SV2A. Contrarily, subchronic ripple HFO and acute pathological fast-ripple HFO (500 Hz) stimulations use-dependently increased L-glutamate release through Cx43-containing hemichannels and Cx43 expression in the plasma membrane. Subchronic fast-ripple HFO-evoked stimulation produced ectopic expression of SV2A in the plasma membrane, but subchronic ripple HFO stimulation did not generate ectopic SV2A. Subchronic administration of brivaracetam and levetiracetam concentration-dependently suppressed fast-ripple HFO-induced astroglial L-glutamate release and expression of Cx43 and SV2A in the plasma membrane. In contrast, subchronic ripple HFO-evoked stimulation induced astroglial L-glutamate release, and Cx43 expression in the plasma membrane was inhibited by subchronic levetiracetam administration, but was not affected by brivaracetam. These results suggest that brivaracetam and levetiracetam inhibit epileptogenic fast-ripple HFO-induced activated astroglial transmission associated with hemichannels. In contrast, the inhibitory effect of therapeutic-relevant concentrations of levetiracetam on physiological ripple HFO-induced astroglial responses probably contributes to the adverse behavioural/psychiatric effects of levetiracetam.

Associations of levetiracetam use with the safety and tolerability profile of chemoradiotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma

Background

Levetiracetam (LEV) is one of the most frequently used antiepileptic drugs (AED) for brain tumor patients with seizures. We hypothesized that toxicity of LEV and temozolomide-based chemoradiotherapy may overlap.

Methods

Using a pooled cohort of patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma included in clinical trials prior to chemoradiotherapy (CENTRIC, CORE, AVAglio) or prior to maintenance therapy (ACT-IV), we tested associations of hematologic toxicity, nausea or emesis, fatigue, and psychiatric adverse events during concomitant and maintenance treatment with the use of LEV alone or with other AED versus other AED alone or in combination versus no AED use at the start of chemoradiotherapy and of maintenance treatment.

Results

Of 1681 and 2020 patients who started concomitant chemoradiotherapy and maintenance temozolomide, respectively, 473 and 714 patients (28.1% and 35.3%) were treated with a LEV-containing regimen, 538 and 475 patients (32.0% and 23.5%) with other AED, and 670 and 831 patients (39.9% and 41.1%) had no AED. LEV was associated with higher risk of psychiatric adverse events during concomitant treatment in univariable and multivariable analyses (RR 1.86 and 1.88, P &lt; .001) while there were no associations with hematologic toxicity, nausea or emesis, or fatigue. LEV was associated with reduced risk of nausea or emesis during maintenance treatment in multivariable analysis (HR = 0.80, P = .017) while there were no associations with hematologic toxicity, fatigue, or psychiatric adverse events.

Conclusions

LEV is not associated with reduced tolerability of chemoradiotherapy in patients with glioblastoma regarding hematologic toxicity and fatigue. Antiemetic properties of LEV may be beneficial during maintenance temozolomide.

PROVE: retrospective, non-interventional, Phase IV study of perampanel in real-world clinical care of patients with epilepsy

Objective

To assess retention, dosing, efficacy, and safety of perampanel in a large cohort of patients with epilepsy during routine clinical care.

Methods

PROVE was a retrospective, non‐interventional Phase IV study (NCT03208660). Data were obtained retrospectively from the medical records of patients in the United States initiating perampanel after January 1, 2014, according to treating clinicians' recommendation. Retention rate was the primary efficacy endpoint. Secondary efficacy endpoints included median percent changes in seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline, seizure‐freedom rate, and overall investigator impression of seizure effect. Safety endpoints included incidence of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Efficacy and safety were also assessed according to baseline use of enzyme‐inducing antiseizure medications (EIASMs).

Results

Overall, 1703 patients were enrolled and included in the Safety Analysis Set (SAS; ≥1 baseline EIASMs, n = 358 [21.0%]; no baseline EIASMs, n = 1345 [79.0%]). Mean (standard deviation [SD]) cumulative duration of exposure to perampanel was 17.4 (15.7) months; mean (SD) daily perampanel dose was 5.6 (2.7) mg. The most frequent perampanel titration intervals were weekly (23.4%) and every 2 weeks (24.7%). Across the SAS, 24‐month retention rate was 48.1% (n = 501/1042). Based on overall investigator impression at the end of treatment, 51.9%, 35.8%, and 12.3% of patients in the SAS experienced improvement, no change, or worsening of seizures, respectively. TEAEs occurred in 704 (41.3%) patients; 79 (4.6%) had serious TEAEs. The most common TEAE was dizziness (7.3%). There was some variation in efficacy according to EIASM use, while retention rates and safety were generally consistent.

Significance

In this final analysis of >1700 patients with epilepsy receiving perampanel in routine clinical care, favorable retention and sustained efficacy were demonstrated for ≥12 months.

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.

Acute Onset Focal Epilepsy Mimicking Stroke

A wide range of acute neurological disorders may present with symptoms similar to a stroke, so-called 'stroke mimics'. Migraine aura and seizures account for the most extensive stroke mimics population. A large number of patients with a definite stroke mimics diagnosis (most commonly those with psychiatric disorders or seizures) had been treated with IV alteplase without adverse related events. We report a case of a man aged 70 years admitted to the emergency room because of acute onset of delirium and a loss of strength in the left arm (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale {NIHSS}: 10), severe hyponatremia (127 mEq/L), and no evidence of intracranial arterial occlusion at CT scan. He was eligible for intravenous thrombolysis and, after treatment, neurological symptoms improved (NIHSS: 2). The subsequent appearance of “clonus” in the left lower limb, the persistence of hyponatremia, and the presence of electroencephalogram (EEG) abnormalities led to the clinical suspicion of focal motor-onset seizure with impaired awareness. The patient was treated successfully with anti-seizure medications (ASMs): lacosamide 200 mg IV during the acute setting care, followed by oral lacosamide 200 mg bis in die (BID). Since two other focal seizures occurred, brivaracetam 25 mg BID has been added in therapy with subsequent clinical discontinuance and EEG normalization. Two consecutive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations showed several cortical lesions restricted in high signal in diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) which corresponding to T2‐weighted and fluid‐attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) hyperintensities, but without lesions evidence in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map. These radiological changes disappeared at a follow-up MRI performed 20 days after the symptoms’ onset. The patient fully recovered was discharged home without developing pharmacological adverse events. In this case, MRI provided an opportunity for early identification of seizure-related alterations. Hence, we discuss how prospective MRI studies during seizures and interictal period would contribute to defining the relationship between the electroclinical characteristics and MRI alteration patterns, and therefore, the potential role of MRI in the differential diagnosis between seizures and stroke mimic.

Effects of anti-seizure medications on sleep architecture and daytime sleepiness in patients with epilepsy: A literature review

Anti-seizure medications (ASMs) may improve or be detrimental to sleep. A literature review (as an update to the 2014 review by Jain and Glauser [https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.12478]) of 25 ASMs of interest (articles from 12 ASMs included) on the effect of ASMs/non-drug treatments on sleep in patients with epilepsy was conducted. The most common objective instrument was polysomnography, and the most common subjective measures were the Epworth Sleepiness Scale and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. Eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide, and perampanel improved or had no effect on sleep. Perampanel was associated with low incidence of insomnia, and lacosamide with low incidence of daytime sleepiness adverse events. Clonazepam, felbamate, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, and phenobarbital worsened or had no effect on sleep. Lamotrigine may be associated with insomnia risk and phenobarbital with daytime sleepiness. Data for valproic acid were mixed. Overall, cannabidiol, carbamazepine, and levetiracetam had no effect on sleep. Epilepsy surgery may benefit sleep in patients with a good surgical outcome. Some ASMs, and, possibly, epilepsy surgery, may have positive effects on sleep, possibly linked to achieving seizure control. Nonetheless, other ASMs may worsen sleep in some settings. Clinicians should consider such observations when making treatment decisions, particularly for patients with comorbid sleep disorders.

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.

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.

Efficacy and tolerability of brivaracetam in patients with intellectual disability and epilepsy

Patients with intellectual disability (ID) are often excluded from clinical trials, and little is known about the best approach to treat their epilepsy. Brivaracetam (BRV) is a new antiepileptic drug (AED) for adjunctive treatment in patients with focal-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization. We analyzed the efficacy and tolerability of BRV in patients with ID and epilepsy who either had or had not previously received treatment with levetiracetam (LEV). Data on efficacy and tolerability were retrospectively collected. After the initial start of BRV in our tertiary epilepsy center, we analyzed medical records at 0, 3, 6 and 12 months of follow-up. 116 patients were included (mean age = 34.9 years, 44% female). All had complete data of 3-month follow-up, 76 of 6-month follow-up, and 39 patients of 1-year follow-up. Median starting dose of BRV was 50.0 mg/day and the mean number of concomitant AEDs was 2.6. Seizure reduction and no side effects were reported in more than half of all patients. The most reported side effects were somnolence, dizziness and aggression. Retention rates for BRV were 84.4%, 75.5% and 58.1% after 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. Seizure reduction and side effects did not differ significantly between the groups with or without previous LEV treatment. We demonstrate that BRV is effective and well tolerated in patients with epilepsy and ID, even in those where previous LEV treatment failed.

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.

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.

Expanding the Treatment Landscape for Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome: Current and Future Strategies

Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS), a childhood-onset severe developmental and epileptic encephalopathy (DEE), is an entity that encompasses a heterogenous group of aetiologies, with no single genetic cause. It is characterised by multiple seizure types, an abnormal EEG with generalised slow spike and wave discharges and cognitive impairment, associated with high morbidity and profound effects on the quality of life of patients and their families. Drug-refractory seizures are a hallmark and treatment is further complicated by its multiple morbidities, which evolve over the patient's lifetime. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the current and future options for the treatment of seizures associated with LGS. Six treatments are specifically indicated as adjunct therapies for the treatment of seizures associated with LGS in the US: lamotrigine, clobazam, rufinamide, topiramate, felbamate and most recently cannabidiol. These therapies have demonstrated reductions in drop seizures in 15%-68% of patients across trials, with responder rates (≥ 50% reduction in drop seizures) of 37%-78%. Valproate is still the preferred first-line treatment, generally in combination with lamotrigine or clobazam. Other treatments frequently used off-label include the broad spectrum anti-epileptic drugs (AED) levetiracetam, zonisamide and perampanel, while recent evidence from observational studies has indicated that a newer AED, the levetiracetam analogue brivaracetam, may be effective and well tolerated in LGS patients. Other treatments in clinical development include fenfluramine in late phase III, perampanel, soticlestat-OV953/TAK-953, carisbamate and ganaxolone. Non-pharmacologic interventions include the ketogenic diet, vagus nerve stimulation and surgical interventions; these are also expanding, with the potential for less invasive techniques for corpus callosotomy that have promise for reducing complications. However, despite these advancements, patients continue to experience a significant burden. Because LGS is not a single entity, tailoring of treatment is needed as opposed to a 'one size fits all' approach. Further research is needed into the underlying aetiologies and pathophysiology of LGS, together with advancements in treatments that encompass the spectrum of seizures associated with this complex syndrome.

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.

Efficacy, Retention and Tolerability of Everolimus in Patients with Tuberous Sclerosis Complex: A Survey-Based Study on Patients' Perspectives

BACKGROUND

The approval of everolimus (EVE) for the treatment of angiomyolipoma (2013), subependymal giant cell astrocytoma (2013) and drug-refractory epilepsy (2017) in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) represents the first disease-modifying treatment option available for this rare and complex genetic disorder.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to analyse the use, efficacy, tolerability and treatment retention of EVE in patients with TSC in Germany from the patient's perspective.

METHODS

A structured cross-age survey was conducted at 26 specialised TSC centres in Germany and by the German TSC patient advocacy group between February and July 2019, enrolling children, adolescents and adult patients with TSC.

RESULTS

Of 365 participants, 36.7% (n = 134) reported the current or past intake of EVE, including 31.5% (n = 115) who were taking EVE at study entry. The mean EVE dosage was 6.1 ± 2.9 mg/m² (median: 5.6 mg/m², range 2.0-15.1 mg/m²) in children and adolescents and 4 ± 2.1 mg/m² (median: 3.7 mg/m², range 0.8-10.1 mg/m²) in adult patients. An early diagnosis of TSC, the presence of angiomyolipoma, drug-refractory epilepsy, neuropsychiatric manifestations, subependymal giant cell astrocytoma, cardiac rhabdomyoma and overall multi-organ involvement were associated with the use of EVE as a disease-modifying treatment. The reported efficacy was 64.0% for angiomyolipoma (75% in adult patients), 66.2% for drug-refractory epilepsy, and 54.4% for subependymal giant cell astrocytoma. The overall retention rate for EVE was 85.8%. The retention rates after 12 months of EVE therapy were higher among adults (93.7%) than among children and adolescents (88.7%; 90.5% vs 77.4% after 24 months; 87.3% vs 77.4% after 36 months). Tolerability was acceptable, with 70.9% of patients overall reporting adverse events, including stomatitis (47.0%), acne-like rash (7.7%), increased susceptibility to common infections and lymphoedema (each 6.0%), which were the most frequently reported symptoms. With a total score of 41.7 compared with 36.8 among patients not taking EVE, patients currently being treated with EVE showed an increased Liverpool Adverse Event Profile. Noticeable deviations in the sub-items 'tiredness', 'skin problems' and 'mouth/gum problems', which are likely related to EVE-typical adverse effects, were more frequently reported among patients taking EVE.

CONCLUSIONS

From the patients' perspective, EVE is an effective and relatively well-tolerated disease-modifying treatment option for children, adolescents and adults with TSC, associated with a high long-term retention rate that can be individually considered for each patient. Everolimus therapy should ideally be supervised by a centre experienced in the use of mechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitors, and adverse effects should be monitored on a regular basis.

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.

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.

Brivaracetam for the treatment of focal-onset seizures: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluations

INTRODUCTION

The goal of pharmacologic therapy with antiseizure medications (ASMs) is to achieve a seizure-free state with minimal side effects. About one third of patients treated with available ASMs continue to experience uncontrolled seizures. There is still need for new ASMs with enhanced effectiveness and tolerability.

AREAS COVERED

The present manuscript is based on an extensive Internet and PubMed search from 1999 to 2020. It is focused on the clinical and pharmacological properties of brivaracetam (BRV) in the treatment of epilepsy.

EXPERT OPINION

BRV is approved as add-on or monotherapy (in US) for the treatment of focal-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization. BRV is a high affinity synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A ligand, with 15-30-fold higher affinity than levetiracetam. The selectivity of BRV may be associated with fewer clinical adverse effects. BRV shares many of the pharmacokinetic characteristics of an ideal ASMs. Additionally, BRV has a low potential for clinically relevant drug-drug interactions. Its pharmacokinetic profile makes BRV a promising agent for the treatment of status epilepticus (SE). Although BRV is not approved for the treatment of SE, it has demonstrated promising preliminary results. Further studies are needed to explore the efficacy and tolerability of BRV in SE.

Clinical experience with brivaracetam in a series of 46 children

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of the study was to analyze the efficacy of brivaracetam (BRV) in pediatric patients 12 months after starting treatment. The secondary objective was to establish safety 3, 6, and 12 months after starting treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

This was an observational and retrospective study. Data were collected from the electronic medical record. Inclusion criteria were as follows: patients under 18 years of age, diagnosis of focal or generalized epilepsy, treatment as an added therapy, initiation of treatment with BRV between June and September 2017, and at least one unprovoked seizure in the year prior to the start of treatment.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients were included. The response rate was 65%, including 30% seizure-free patients. The rate of adverse effects was 43.5%, resulting in withdrawal in 16 patients (34.7%). The most common adverse effects were drowsiness (17.3%) and irritability (17.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Brivaracetam is effective in very diverse childhood epilepsies, including some that present with primarily generalized seizures. Given the characteristics of the population studied, we have not been able to confirm a better tolerability of BRV compared with levetiracetam (LEV).

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

PURPOSE

This multicenter service evaluation explores the efficacy and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in an unselected, consecutive population in 'real-life' clinical settings.

METHOD

We retrospectively collected data from patient records at 11 UK hospitals and epilepsy centers. Consecutive patients prescribed BRV with at least 3 months of follow-up (FU) were included. Apart from reporting effectiveness and tolerability of BRV across the whole cohort, we compared treatment outcomes depending on previous levetiracetam use (LEV+ versus LEV-), comorbid learning disability (LD+ versus LD-), and epilepsy syndrome (focal versus generalized epilepsy).

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety patients (46% male, median age: 38 years, range: 15 to 77) with ≥3 months of FU were included. The median duration of BRV exposure was 12 months (range: 1 day to 72 months). Overall BRV retention was 71.1%. While 56.1% of patients improved in terms of seizure frequency category (daily, weekly, monthly, yearly seizures), 23.1% did not improve on this measure and 20.8% deteriorated. In terms of seizure frequency, 21% of patients experienced a ≥50% reduction, with 7.0% of all patients becoming seizure-free. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were reported by 107 (36.9%) patients, but there were no serious AEs. The commonest AEs were sedation/fatigue (18.3%), mood changes (9.0%), and irritability/aggression (4.8%). There were no significant differences in drug retention, seizure frequency outcomes, or AEs between the LEV+ and LEV- subgroups, or between patients with generalized or focal epilepsies. Although 15.5% of patients in the LD+ group achieved a ≥50% reduction, this rate was lower than in the LD- group.

CONCLUSIONS

This 'real-life' evaluation suggests that reductions in seizure frequency can be achieved with BRV in patients with highly refractory epilepsy. Brivaracetam may be a useful treatment option in patients who have previously failed to respond to or tolerate LEV, those with LD, or (off-label) those with generalized epilepsies.

Brivaracetam: First Canadian Experience in an Intractable Epilepsy Population

Objective:

To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in a refractory epilepsy population in an outpatient clinical setting.

Methods:

Retrospective medical information system review and self-report questionnaire for all patients treated with BRV until the end of 2017.

Results:

Thirty-eight patients were included, 73.7% female and mean age 36.2. The mean number of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for previous use was 8.9, and for current use was 2.5. Mean seizure frequency in the last 3 months was 12 per month. At 3, 6, 12, and 15 months, the 50% responder rates were 36.1%, 32%, 41.2%, and 45.5%, respectively. Patients took BRV for a median duration of 8.25 months, ranging from 7 days to 60 months. Retention rate was 75.0%, 72.0%, 59.2%, and 47.9% at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months, respectively. Overall, the main reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (AEs) (52.3%), lack of efficacy (35.3%), or both (11.8%). The rate of total AEs was 60.5% according to medical records and 85.7% according to questionnaire, including mostly tiredness, psychiatric, and memory complaints. Psychiatric side effects occurred in 31.6% according to medical records and 47.4% according to questionnaire results, which is higher than previously reported and persisted throughout the study period.

Conclusions:

BRV appears to be a useful and safe add-on treatment, even in a very refractory group of patients. In this real-life clinical setting, psychiatric AEs were found at a higher rate than previously published.

Safety and tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam in epilepsy: In-depth pooled analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this analysis was to provide a comprehensive analysis of safety data for adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV), an antiepileptic drug (AED) of the racetam class, for treatment of focal seizures in patients with epilepsy.

METHODS

Data were pooled from two phase II, placebo-controlled, double-blind, dose-ranging trials (N01114 [ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00175929], N01193 [NCT00175825]) and three phase III, placebo-controlled, double-blind, 12-week trials (N01252 [NCT00490035], N01253 [NCT00464269], and N01358 [NCT01261325]) in patients aged ≥16 years with focal seizures, as well as a phase III, placebo-controlled, double-blind, 16-week trial in patients aged ≥16 years with focal or generalized epilepsy (N01254 [NCT00504881]). Data are presented for the approved therapeutic dose range of 50-200 mg/day. Data for BRV administered intravenously (25-150 mg doses) were pooled separately from one phase III trial (N01258 NCT01405508]) and two clinical pharmacology trials (N01256 [Part B] [UCB Pharma, data on file]; EP0007 [NCT01796899]). Adverse events (AEs) of interest were summarized in relevant categories.

RESULTS

The safety pool comprised 1957 patients: 1271 receiving adjunctive BRV and 686 receiving placebo. Overall, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was 66.9% with BRV versus 62.8% with placebo. The most frequently reported TEAEs with BRV (≥5% of patients) versus placebo were somnolence (13.3% vs. 7.9%), headache (10.5% vs. 11.5%), dizziness (10.0% vs. 7.0%), and fatigue (8.2% vs. 4.2%). Incidence of psychiatric disorder-related TEAEs was 11.3% with BRV versus 8.2% with placebo. Behavioral disorder-related TEAE incidence was low (4.0% with BRV vs. 2.5% with placebo). Irritability was reported in 2.7% of BRV-treated patients vs. 1.5% of patients receiving placebo; anger, aggression, and agitation were each reported by ≤1% of patients receiving BRV. Treatment-emergent adverse events potentially associated with psychosis were psychotic disorder (three patients on BRV vs. two patients on placebo), auditory hallucination, illusion, visual hallucination (one patient each on BRV), epileptic psychosis, and hallucination (one patient each on placebo). No additional safety concerns were identified in patients with intravenous (IV) BRV administration (n = 104).

CONCLUSIONS

These safety data for adjunctive BRV support its acceptable safety and tolerability profile.