Intravenous brivaracetam in status epilepticus: A retrospective single-center study

Sustained effort network for treatment of status epilepticus/European academy of neurology registry on adult refractory status epilepticus (SENSE-II/AROUSE)

BACKGROUND

Status Epilepticus (SE) is a common neurological emergency associated with a high rate of functional decline and mortality. Large randomized trials have addressed the early phases of treatment for convulsive SE. However, evidence regarding third-line anesthetic treatment and the treatment of nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) is scarce. One trial addressing management of refractory SE with deep general anesthesia was terminated early due to insufficient recruitment. Multicenter prospective registries, including the Sustained Effort Network for treatment of Status Epilepticus (SENSE), have shed some light on these questions, but many answers are still lacking, such as the influence exerted by distinct EEG patterns in NCSE on the outcome. We therefore initiated a new prospective multicenter observational registry to collect clinical and EEG data that combined may further help in clinical decision-making and defining SE.

METHODS

Sustained effort network for treatment of status epilepticus/European Academy of Neurology Registry on refractory Status Epilepticus (SENSE-II/AROUSE) is a prospective, multicenter registry for patients treated for SE. The primary objectives are to document patient and SE characteristics, treatment modalities, EEG, neuroimaging data, and outcome of consecutive adults admitted for SE treatment in each of the participating centers and to identify factors associated with outcome and refractoriness. To reach sufficient statistical power for multivariate analysis, a cohort size of 3000 patients is targeted.

DISCUSSION

The data collected for the registry will provide both valuable EEG data and information about specific treatment steps in different patient groups with SE. Eventually, the data will support clinical decision-making and may further guide the planning of clinical trials. Finally, it could help to redefine NCSE and its management.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT number: NCT05839418.

Real-life evidence about the use of intravenous brivaracetam in urgent seizures: The BRIV-IV study

PURPOSE

Urgent seizures are a medical emergency for which new therapies are still needed. This study evaluated the use of intravenous brivaracetam (IV-BRV) in an emergency setting in clinical practice.

METHODS

BRIV-IV was a retrospective, multicenter, observational study. It included patients ≥18 years old who were diagnosed with urgent seizures (including status epilepticus (SE), acute repetitive seizures, and high-risk seizures) and who were treated with IV-BRV according to clinical practice in 14 hospital centers. Information was extracted from clinical charts and included in an electronic database. Primary effectiveness endpoints included the rate of IV-BRV responder patients, the rate of patients with a sustained response without seizure relapse in 12 h, and the time between IV-BRV administration and clinical response. Primary safety endpoints were comprised the percentage of patients with adverse events and those with adverse events leading to discontinuation.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients were included in this study. The mean age was 57.7 ± 21.5 years old with a prior diagnosis of epilepsy for 57.1% of patients. The most frequent etiologies were brain tumor-related (18.1%) and vascular (11.2%) epilepsy. SE was diagnosed in 55.3% of patients. The median time from urgent seizure onset to IV treatment administration was 60.0 min (range: 15.0-360.0), and the median time from IV treatment to IV-BRV was 90.0 min (range: 30.0-2400.0). Regarding dosage, the mean bolus infusion was 163.0 ± 73.0 mg and the mean daily dosage was 195.0 ± 87.0 mg. A total of 77.6% of patients responded to IV-BRV (66.3% with SE vs. 91% other urgent seizures) with a median response time of 30.0 min (range: 10.0-60.0). A sustained response was achieved in 62.8% of patients. However, adverse events were reported in 14.7%, which were predominantly somnolence and fatigue, with 4.5% leading to discontinuation. Eighty-six percent of patients were discharged with oral brivaracetam.

CONCLUSION

IV-BRV in emergency settings was effective, and tolerability was good for most patients. However, a larger series is needed to confirm the outcomes.

A retrospective multicentric study on the effectiveness of intravenous brivaracetam in seizure clusters: Data from the Italian experience

OBJECTIVE

Nearly half of people with epilepsy (PWE) are expected to develop seizure clusters (SC), with the subsequent risk of hospitalization. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the use, effectiveness and safety of intravenous (IV) brivaracetam (BRV) in the treatment of SC.

METHODS

Retrospective multicentric study of patients with SC (≥ 2 seizures/24 h) who received IV BRV. Data collection occurred from January 2019 to April 2022 in 25 Italian neurology units. Primary efficacy outcome was seizure freedom up to 24 h from BRV administration. We also evaluated the risk of evolution into Status Epilepticus (SE) at 6, 12 and 24 h after treatment initiation. A Cox regression model was used to identify outcome predictors.

RESULTS

97 patients were included (mean age 62 years), 74 (76%) of whom had a history of epilepsy (with drug resistant seizures in 49% of cases). BRV was administered as first line treatment in 16% of the episodes, while it was used as first or second drug after benzodiazepines failure in 49% and 35% of episodes, respectively. On the one hand, 58% patients were seizure free at 24 h after BRV administration and no other rescue medications were used in 75 out of 97 cases (77%) On the other hand, SC evolved into SE in 17% of cases. A higher probability of seizure relapse and/or evolution into SE was observed in patients without a prior history of epilepsy (HR 2.0; 95% CI 1.03 - 4.1) and in case of BRV administration as second/third line drug (HR 3.2; 95% CI 1.1 - 9.7). No severe treatment emergent adverse events were observed.

SIGNIFICANCE

In our cohort, IV BRV resulted to be well tolerated for the treatment of SC and it could be considered as a treatment option, particularly in case of in-hospital onset. However, the underlying etiology seems to be the main outcome predictor.

Rapid intravenous loading of brivaracetam during invasive and non-invasive video-EEG monitoring

PURPOSE

The pharmacokinetics of Brivaracetam (BRV) and its ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier quickly make it a suitable drug for emergencies. In this study, our aim was to investigate the tolerability, safety, and acute efficacy of rapid intravenous (IV) loading of BRV during invasive and non-invasive video-EEG monitoring in patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy (DRFE).

METHODS

Eleven adult patients, six during stereo-electroencephalography (SEEG) and five in scalp video-EEG evaluation, received a 10-minute IV infusion of BRV 100 mg after a period of total withdrawal from antiseizure medications (ASMs). The ictal and interictal EEG activity was assessed through visual and spectrographic analysis before and after intravenous BRV administration. Patients completed the Liverpool Adverse Events Profile (LAEP) scale to evaluate tolerability and adverse events.

RESULTS

Rapid BRV IV infusion was well tolerated in all patients. The mean LAEP values showed no significant differences (p = 0.40). Loading BRV resulted in a reduction in interictal activity in six patients. The mean seizure frequency significantly decreased five hours after BRV administration (a 79.2 % reduction across the entire group, p = 0.027). A significant change in spectral band analysis was observed ten minutes after BRV administration.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that rapid BRV IV infusion has a favorable safety profile and is effective in controlling seizure series in the short term. The electrophysiological changes observed ten minutes after the BRV load correlate with its effects on brain dynamics after blood-brain barrier diffusion.

Epidemiology, management and outcome of status epilepticus in adults: single-center Italian survey

The official variations of status epilepticus (SE) International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE, 2015) diagnostic criteria and the non-convulsive SE (NCSE) Salzburg Consensus Criteria (2013), impose the collection of updated population-based epidemiological Italian data. In this study, we aimed at evaluating (a) the frequency of SE in our hospital adopting the new ILAE 2015 SE diagnostic criteria and NCSE Salzburg Consensus Criteria, (b) the frequency of adherence to current treatment guidelines for SE and their relationship with patients' outcome, and (c) reliability of standardized prognostic scales (Status Epilepticus Severity Score-STESS-and modified STESS) for short-term outcome prediction in the setting of the newest diagnostic criteria for SE and NCSE. Detailed clinical and electrophysiological data collected in a 1-year retrospective hospital-based single-center survey on SE at Parma Hospital, Northern Italy are provided. Non-adherence to current treatment guidelines was recorded in around 50% cases, but no relation to outcome was appreciated. Mortality in our cohort increased from 30 to 50% when follow-up was extended to 30 days. STESS score was strongly correlated with short-term mortality risk (OR 18.9, 2.2-163.5, CI), and we confirm its role as easy-to-use tool for outcome evaluation also when the new ILAE diagnostic SE criteria are applied.

[Pharmacotherapy and intensive care aspects of status epilepticus: update 2020/2021]

Die gezielte Therapie epileptischer Ereignisse und im Speziellen des Status epilepticus (SE) setzt das sichere Erkennen der Krankheitsbilder voraus, wofür gerade bei Formen mit vorwiegend nichtmotorischen Symptomen klinische und elektroenzephalographische Expertise notwendig ist. Die im Jahr 2020 erfolgte Fortschreibung der deutschen Leitlinie zur Behandlung des SE hält an der streng stufengerechten Therapie fest, die eskalierend die Anwendung von Benzodiazepinen, spezifischen Antiepileptika und Anästhetika vorsieht. Bisher ist die Eingrenzung eines in den allermeisten Fällen wirksamen sowie zugleich sicheren und interaktionsfreien Antiepileptikums nicht gelungen. Individuelle Vorerkrankungen und aktuelle Begleitumstände gehen daher genauso wie Erfahrungen des Behandlerteams in die differenzierte Behandlung des SE ein. Insbesondere bei therapierefraktären Formen des SE erweist sich die Therapie als durchaus kompliziert und hat regelhaft intensivmedizinische Implikationen. Mithin ergeben sich im Zuge der modernen SE-Behandlung zahlreiche interdisziplinäre Schnittstellen. Zukünftige wissenschaftliche Fragstellungen werden sich u. a. mit der optimalen Therapie des nonkonvulsiven SE und hier v. a. dem Ausmaß und dem Zeitpunkt von adäquaten Therapieschritten sowie mit assoziierten ethischen Fragen einer Therapieeskalation beschäftigen.

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.

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.

Intravenous brivaracetam in status epilepticus: A multicentric retrospective study in Italy

PURPOSE

to evaluate the use, effectiveness, and adverse events of intravenous brivaracetam (BRV) in status epilepticus (SE).

METHODS

a retrospective multicentric study involving 24 Italian neurology units was performed from March 2018 to June 2020. A shared case report form was used across participating centres to limit biases of retrospective data collection. Diagnosis and classification of SE followed the 2015 ILAE proposal. We considered a trial with BRV a success when it was the last administered drug prior the clinical and/or EEG resolution of seizures, and the SE did not recur during hospital observation. In addition, we considered cases with early response, defined as SE resolved within 6 h after BRV administration.

RESULTS

56 patients were included (mean age 62 years; 57 % male). A previous diagnosis of epilepsy was present in 21 (38 %). Regarding SE etiology classification 46 % were acute symptomatic, 18 % remote and 16 % progressive symptomatic. SE episodes with prominent motor features were the majority (80 %). BRV was administered as first drug after benzodiazepine failure in 21 % episodes, while it was used as the second or the third (or more) drug in the 38 % and 38 % of episodes respectively. The median loading dose was 100 mg (range 50-300 mg). BRV was effective in 32 cases (57 %). An early response was documented in 22 patients (39 % of the whole sample). The use of the BRV within 6 h from SE onset was independently associated to an early SE resolution (OR 32; 95 % CI 3.39-202; p = 0.002). No severe treatment emergent adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSION

BRV proved to be useful and safe for the treatment of SE. Time to seizures resolution appears shorter when it is administered in the early phases of SE.

Continuous Visual Focal Status Epilepticus as the Primary Presentation of NMDA-R and GAD65-R Autoimmune Epilepsy

Epilepsia partialis continua (EPC) has changed in its clinical and pathophysiological definition throughout time. Several etiologies have been described in addition to classic causes of EPC. The following case depicts a young woman who had a peculiar onset of epilepsy with a continuous visual aura becoming a form of chronic recurrent and non-progressive EPC. The patient was initially misdiagnosed as a non-neurological entity (assumed psychiatric in origin), but finally, an immune-mediated epilepsy was diagnosed, and EEG showed focal status epilepticus during evolution. Once the diagnosis was achieved and immune treatment was established, the patient is seizure free. Early identification of an immune basis in patients with epilepsy is important because immunotherapy can reverse the epileptogenic process and reduce the risk of chronic epilepsy. To date, this is the only case reported with EPC manifesting as a continuous visual aura associated with antiglutamic acid decarboxylase 65 (anti-GAD65) and anti-N-methyl-d-aspartate (anti-NMDA) antibodies.

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.

Principles of Pharmacotherapy of Seizures and Status Epilepticus

Status epilepticus is a neurological emergency with an outcome that is highly associated with the initial pharmacotherapy management that must be administered in a timely fashion. Beyond first-line therapy of status epilepticus, treatment is not guided by robust evidence. Optimal pharmacotherapy selection for individual patients is essential in the management of seizures and status epilepticus with careful evaluation of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors. With the addition of newer antiseizure agents to the market, understanding their role in the management of status epilepticus is critical. Etiology-guided therapy should be considered in certain patients with drug-induced seizures, alcohol withdrawal, or autoimmune encephalitis. Some patient populations warrant special consideration, such as pediatric, pregnant, elderly, and the critically ill. Seizure prophylaxis is indicated in select patients with acute neurological injury and should be limited to the acute postinjury period.

Intravenous brivaracetam for the management of refractory focal non-convulsive status epilepticus

Diagnosis and management of status epilepticus (SE), including non-convulsive status epilepticus (NCSE), is challenging, with a reported 30%–50% of epilepticus patients not responding to available antiseizure medications (ASMs). Injectable benzodiazepines, fosphenytoin, valproate, levetiracetam, lacosamide and phenobarbital are commonly used for treating SE. Brivaracetam, a new ASM, with higher affinity and greater selectivity for the synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A than levetiracetam, has been approved as monotherapy or adjunct for treatment of focal onset seizures. Brivaracetam may have a role in the management of SE. However, limited data exist on brivaracetam’s efficacy in SE. We describe a patient case with focal NCSE refractory to levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, lacosamide and valproate who demonstrated clinical and electrographic improvement on continuous electroencephalography monitoring after brivaracetam administration.

Treatment of Refractory Convulsive Status Epilepticus: A Comprehensive Review by the American Epilepsy Society Treatments Committee

Purpose:

Established tonic–clonic status epilepticus (SE) does not stop in one-third of patients when treated with an intravenous (IV) benzodiazepine bolus followed by a loading dose of a second antiseizure medication (ASM). These patients have refractory status epilepticus (RSE) and a high risk of morbidity and death. For patients with convulsive refractory status epilepticus (CRSE), we sought to determine the strength of evidence for 8 parenteral ASMs used as third-line treatment in stopping clinical CRSE.

Methods:

A structured literature search (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL) was performed to identify original studies on the treatment of CRSE in children and adults using IV brivaracetam, ketamine, lacosamide, levetiracetam (LEV), midazolam (MDZ), pentobarbital (PTB; and thiopental), propofol (PRO), and valproic acid (VPA). Adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), magnesium sulfate, and pyridoxine were added to determine the effectiveness in treating hard-to-control seizures in special circumstances. Studies were evaluated by predefined criteria and were classified by strength of evidence in stopping clinical CRSE (either as the last ASM added or compared to another ASM) according to the 2017 American Academy of Neurology process.

Results:

No studies exist on the use of ACTH, corticosteroids, or IVIg for the treatment of CRSE. Small series and case reports exist on the use of these agents in the treatment of RSE of suspected immune etiology, severe epileptic encephalopathies, and rare epilepsy syndromes. For adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists on the effectiveness of brivaracetam (level U; 4 class IV studies). For children and adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists on the effectiveness of ketamine (level U; 25 class IV studies). For children and adults with CRSE, it is possible that lacosamide is effective at stopping RSE (level C; 2 class III, 14 class IV studies). For children with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists that LEV and VPA are equally effective (level U, 1 class III study). For adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support the effectiveness of LEV (level U; 2 class IV studies). Magnesium sulfate may be effective in the treatment of eclampsia, but there are only case reports of its use for CRSE. For children with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support either that MDZ and diazepam infusions are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study) or that MDZ infusion and PTB are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study). For adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support either that MDZ infusion and PRO are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study) or that low-dose and high-dose MDZ infusions are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study). For children and adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that MDZ is effective as the last drug added (level U; 29 class IV studies). For adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that PTB and PRO are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study). For adults and children with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that PTB is effective as the last ASM added (level U; 42 class IV studies). For CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that PRO is effective as the last ASM used (level U; 26 class IV studies). No pediatric-only studies exist on the use of PRO for CRSE, and many guidelines do not recommend its use in children aged <16 years. Pyridoxine-dependent and pyridoxine-responsive epilepsies should be considered in children presenting between birth and age 3 years with refractory seizures and no imaging lesion or other acquired cause of seizures. For children with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists that VPA and diazepam infusion are equally effective (level U, 1 class III study). No class I to III studies have been reported in adults treated with VPA for CRSE. In comparison, for children and adults with established convulsive SE (ie, not RSE), after an initial benzodiazepine, it is likely that loading doses of LEV 60 mg/kg, VPA 40 mg/kg, and fosphenytoin 20 mg PE/kg are equally effective at stopping SE (level B, 1 class I study).

Conclusions:

Mostly insufficient evidence exists on the efficacy of stopping clinical CRSE using brivaracetam, lacosamide, LEV, valproate, ketamine, MDZ, PTB, and PRO either as the last ASM or compared to others of these drugs. Adrenocorticotropic hormone, IVIg, corticosteroids, magnesium sulfate, and pyridoxine have been used in special situations but have not been studied for CRSE. For the treatment of established convulsive SE (ie, not RSE), LEV, VPA, and fosphenytoin are likely equally effective, but whether this is also true for CRSE is unknown. Triple-masked, randomized controlled trials are needed to compare the effectiveness of parenteral anesthetizing and nonanesthetizing ASMs in the treatment of CRSE.

Therapeutic Options for Patients with Refractory Status Epilepticus in Palliative Settings or with a Limitation of Life-Sustaining Therapies: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Refractory status epilepticus (RSE) represents a serious medical condition requiring early and targeted therapy. Given the increasing number of elderly or multimorbid patients with a limitation of life-sustaining therapy (LOT) or within a palliative care setting (PCS), guidelines-oriented therapy escalation options for RSE have to be omitted frequently.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review sought to summarize the evidence for fourth-line antiseizure drugs (ASDs) and other minimally or non-invasive therapeutic options beyond guideline recommendations in patients with RSE to elaborate on possible treatment options for patients undergoing LOT or in a PCS.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, focusing on fourth-line ASDs or other minimally or non-invasive therapeutic options was performed in February and June 2020 using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. The search terminology was constructed using the name of the specific ASD or therapy option and the term 'status epilepticus' with the use of Boolean operators, e.g. "(brivaracetam) AND (status epilepticus)". The respective Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Emtree terms were used, if available.

RESULTS

There is currently no level 1, grade A evidence for the use of ASDs in RSE. The best evidence was found for the use of lacosamide and topiramate (level 3, grade C), followed by brivaracetam, perampanel (each level 4, grade D) and stiripentol, oxcarbazepine and zonisamide (each level 5, grade D). Regarding non-medicinal options, there is little evidence for the use of the ketogenic diet (level 4, grade D) and magnesium sulfate (level 5, grade D) in RSE. The broad use of immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive treatment options in the absence of a presumed autoimmune etiology cannot be recommended; however, if an autoimmune etiology is assumed, steroid pulse, intravenous immunoglobulins and plasma exchange/plasmapheresis should be considered (level 4, grade D). Even if several studies suggested that the use of neurosteroids (level 5, grade D) is beneficial in RSE, the current data situation indicates that there is formal evidence against it.

CONCLUSIONS

RSE in patients undergoing LOT or in a PCS represents a challenge for modern clinicians and epileptologists. The evidence for the use of ASDs in RSE beyond that in current guidelines is low, but several effective and well-tolerated options are available that should be considered in this patient population. More so than in any other population, advance care planning, advance directives, and medical ethical aspects have to be considered carefully before and during therapy.

Treatment of status epilepticus with zonisamide: A multicenter cohort study of 34 patients and review of literature

INTRODUCTION

We present a summary of clinical cases of oral zonisamide (ZNS) used to treat refractory and super-refractory episodes of status epilepticus (SE).

METHODS

Zonisamide administration in SE was identified in the clinical records of patients treated in Frankfurt and Marburg between 2011 and 2017.

RESULTS

Zonisamide was administered during a total of 37 SE episodes in 34 patients with a mean age of 58.7 ± 17.8 years, 21 of them were female (61.7%). The median latency from the onset of SE to administration of ZNS was 6.3 days. Patients had already undergone unsuccessful treatment with a median of three other antiseizure drugs (ASDs). The median initial dose of ZNS was 100 mg/d, titrated to a median maintenance dose of 400 mg/d. Patients underwent ZNS treatment for a median period of 7 days. Zonisamide was the final drug administered in 9 of 37 (24.3%) episodes, with a clinical effect attributed to ZNS observed in 6 of 37 (16.2%) episodes. An effect attributed to ZNS was observed in 5 out of 30 episodes of refractory SE (RSE) and in one out of 7 episodes of super-refractory SE (SRSE). Possible negative side effects of ZNS were observed in two patients (one patient each with ataxia and skin rash). The mortality rate in hospitalized patients was 10.4% (n = 4).

CONCLUSION

The rate of SE resolution attributed to ZNS treatment (16.2%) can be considered relevant, particularly since ZNS treatment tends to be administered only after several other options have been tried, and has a treatment latency of over six days. Zonisamide may therefore be considered as an alternative oral treatment option in RSE and SRSE.

Efficacy and tolerability of intravenous brivaracetam for status epilepticus: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Status epilepticus (SE) is an emergent neurologic condition that carries a high risk of morbidity and mortality. Intravenous brivaracetam (IV BRV) may be an alternative anticonvulsant against status epilepticus, although the sparseness of controlled studies on the topic limits its recommendation for this indication.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of IV BRV in the treatment of status epilepticus.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted until December 2019 through several electronic databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, OpenGrey, ScienceDirect, HERDIN, Epistemonikos, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov) to identify relevant studies. Studies that involved adult patients with SE who were given IV BRV were considered for inclusion in this review.

RESULTS

From a total of 34 studies identified, 5 uncontrolled studies with 77 patients were included in this review. Thirty-seven out of 77 patients (48%) with SE responded to IV BRV. Reported time to seizure cessation may be immediate from a few minutes to several hours after IV BRV treatment. Patients manifested with significant disability on Glasgow outcome scale (Median: 3) and modified Rankin scale (Mode: 5). Six patients [somnolence (5), worsening seizures (1)] had treatment emergent adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence from 5 uncontrolled studies involving a limited number of patients suggests that IV BRV may be efficacious and safe in terminating seizures among patients with SE or refractory SE. Further studies employing either prospective, controlled trials or registry-based study designs are essential to determine the definitive role of IV BRV in patients with SE.

Antiseizure medications in critical care: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Seizures and status epilepticus are very common diagnoses in the critically ill patient and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There is an abundance of research on the utility of antiseizure medications in this setting, but limited randomized-controlled trials to guide the selection of medications in these patients. This review examines the current guidelines and treatment strategies for status epilepticus and provides an update on newer antiseizure medications in the critical care settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Time is brain applies to status epilepticus, with delays in treatment corresponding with worsened outcomes. Establishing standardized treatment protocols within a health system, including prehospital treatment, may lead to improved outcomes. Once refractory status epilepticus is established, continuous deep sedation with intravenous anesthetic agents should be effective. In cases, which prove highly refractory, novel approaches should be considered, with recent data suggesting multiple recently approved antiseizure medications, appropriate therapeutic options, as well as novel approaches to upregulate extrasynaptic γ-aminobutyric acid channels with brexanolone.

SUMMARY

Although there are many new treatments to consider for seizures and status epilepticus in the critically ill patient, the most important predictor of outcome may be rapid diagnosis and treatment. There are multiple new and established medications that can be considered in the treatment of these patients once status epilepticus has become refractory, and a multidrug regimen will often be necessary.

Rapidity of CNS Effect on Photoparoxysmal Response for Brivaracetam vs. Levetiracetam: A Randomized, Double-blind, Crossover Trial in Photosensitive Epilepsy Patients

INTRODUCTION

Both levetiracetam (LEV) and brivaracetam (BRV) eliminate the electroencephalogram photoparoxysmal response (PPR) in the human phase IIa photosensitivity model of epilepsy. The physiochemical properties of BRV differ from those of LEV, having higher potency and lipophilicity plus 10- to 15-fold greater affinity for synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the rapidity of the effects of both drugs in the central nervous system (CNS) of patients with photosensitive epilepsy using time to PPR elimination post-intravenous infusion as a pharmacodynamic endpoint.

METHODS

Using a randomized, double-blind, two-period, balanced, crossover design, we tested patients with photosensitive epilepsy with equipotent milligram doses of intravenous LEV 1500 mg versus BRV 100 mg post-15-min intravenous infusion (part 1) and post-5-min intravenous infusion (part 2, same doses). Eight patients per part were deemed sufficient with 80% power to determine a 70% reduction for intravenous BRV:LEV intrapatient time ratio to PPR elimination, with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. Plasma antiseizure medicine concentrations were measured using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry.

RESULTS

Nine patients [six women; mean age 27.8 years (range 18-42)] completed the study; seven of these participated in both parts 1 and 2. In 31 of 32 instances, patients experienced PPR elimination. In mixed-effects model time analysis, BRV eliminated PPRs more quickly than did LEV (median 2 vs. 7.5 min, respectively). However, no statistically significant difference in BRV:LEV time ratio to PPR elimination was observed for two of our multiple primary outcomes: for the 15-min infusion alone (p = 0.22) or the 5-min infusion alone (p = 0.11). However, BRV was faster when we excluded an outlier patient in part 1 (p = 0.0016). For our remaining primary outcome, parts 1 and 2 data combined, the median intrapatient BRV:LEV time ratio was 0.39 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16-0.91], i.e., PPR elimination was 61% faster with BRV, p = 0.039. PPR was completely eliminated in ≤ 2 min in 11 patients with BRV and in four patients with LEV. No period or carryover effects were seen. No serious or severe adverse effects occurred. At PPR elimination (n = 16), median plasma [BRV] was 250 ng/mL (range 30-4100) and median plasma [LEV] was 28.35 μg/mL (range 1-86.7).

CONCLUSION

Outcome studies directly comparing LEV and BRV are needed to define the clinical utility of the response with BRV, which was several minutes faster than that with LEV.

CLINICAL TRIALS

ClinTrials.gov Identifier = NCT03580707; registered 07-09-18.

Levetiracetam and brivaracetam: a review of evidence from clinical trials and clinical experience

Until the early 1990s, a limited number of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were available. Since then, a large variety of new AEDs have been developed and introduced, several of them offering new modes of action. One of these new AED families is described and reviewed in this article. Levetiracetam (LEV) and brivaracetam (BRV) are pyrrolidone derivate compounds binding at the presynaptic SV2A receptor site and are thus representative of AEDs with a unique mode of action. LEV was extensively investigated in randomized controlled trials and has a very promising efficacy both in focal and generalized epilepsies. Its pharmacokinetic profile is favorable and LEV does not undergo clinically relevant interactions. Adverse reactions comprise mainly asthenia, somnolence, and behavioral symptoms. It has now been established as a first-line antiepileptic drug. BRV has been recently introduced as an adjunct antiepileptic drug in focal epilepsy with a similarly promising pharmacokinetic profile and possibly increased tolerability concerning psychiatric adverse events. This review summarizes the essential preclinical and clinical data of LEV and BRV that is currently available and includes the experiences at a large tertiary referral epilepsy center.

[Management of refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus]

If status epilepticus continues despite the use of intravenous antiepileptic drugs or narcotics, it is called "refractory" or "super-refractory" status epilepticus (RSE, SRSE). Prolonged seizure activity is associated with neuronal damage, systemic complications and mortality rates of up to 50%, especially in generalized tonic clonic seizure types. In order to terminate the status, several rescue interventions with drugs and other measures are available. However, their evidence base is low because the effectiveness of the measures was almost exclusively derived from case reports and case series. In individual cases, a good outcome is possible even after several months of ongoing SRSE.

Prevention, Treatment, and Monitoring of Seizures in the Intensive Care Unit

The diagnosis and management of seizures in the critically ill patient can sometimes present a unique challenge for practitioners due to lack of exposure and complex patient comorbidities. The reported incidence varies between 8% and 34% of critically ill patients, with many patients often showing no overt clinical signs of seizures. Outcomes in patients with unidentified seizure activity tend to be poor, and mortality significantly increases in those who have seizure activity longer than 30 min. Prompt diagnosis and provision of medical therapy are crucial in order to attain successful seizure termination and prevent poor outcomes. In this article, we review the epidemiology and pathophysiology of seizures in the critically ill, various seizure monitoring modalities, and recommended medical therapy.

Intravenous Brivaracetam in the Treatment of Status Epilepticus: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Brivaracetam is a high-affinity synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A ligand with high brain permeability and rapid onset of action. These properties make brivaracetam potentially an ideal compound in the emergency setting.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to review the evidence about the clinical efficacy and tolerability of intravenous brivaracetam in the treatment of status epilepticus.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, and conference proceedings to identify studies evaluating intravenous brivaracetam as treatment for status epilepticus of any type in patients of any age. Searches were conducted on 3 December, 2018.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included (37 patients; aged 22-85 years; 21 were female). The type and etiology of status epilepticus varied across studies. The number of drugs used prior to brivaracetam to treat status epilepticus ranged from 1 to 8. The time from status epilepticus onset to brivaracetam administration ranged from 0.5 h to 105 days. The initial brivaracetam dose ranged from 50 to 400 mg. In case series, the proportion of patients achieving clinical status epilepticus cessation when brivaracetam was administered as the last drug varied from 27 to 50%; in case reports, all patients had status epilepticus cessation. The time from brivaracetam administration to status epilepticus cessation ranged from 15 min to 94 h. No serious adverse effects were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The available data suggested that brivaracetam can be a safe treatment option in patients with status epilepticus. The current evidence is however hampered by several confounding factors, and controlled studies are warranted to define the actual benefit of brivaracetam for the treatment of status epilepticus.

Use of intravenous brivaracetam in status epilepticus: A multicenter registry

OBJECTIVE

The pharmacokinetics of brivaracetam (BRV), added to its effectiveness observed in animal models of status epilepticus (SE), makes this drug attractive for use in emergency situations. Our objective was to evaluate the use of intravenous BRV in a multicenter study.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter registry of SE cases treated with BRV was created. These patients were evaluated between January and December 2018 at seven hospitals in Spain. Demographic variables, SE characteristics, concomitant drugs, loading doses, and response to treatment were collected.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients were registered. The mean age was 56 ± 23.1 years, 51.2% were male, 29 had previous epilepsy, 24 (55.8%) had prominent motor symptoms, and 19 had nonconvulsive symptoms. Regarding the etiology, 19 (44.2%) were considered acute symptomatic, 16 (17.2%) remote symptomatic, four (9.3%) progressive symptomatic, and four (9.3%) cryptogenic. Regarding concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), 17 had previously received levetiracetam (LEV). In 14 patients, BRV was used early (first or second AED). The median loading dose was 100 mg (range = 50-400), and the weight-adjusted dose was 1.8 mg/kg (range = 0.4-7.3). BRV was effective in 54% (n = 23), and a response was observed in <6 hours in 13 patients. We observed a tendency for it to be more effective when administered earlier (P = 0.09), but there were no differences regarding SE type and the concomitant use of LEV. In those with the fastest responses, we observed that both the total administered dose (300 mg vs 100 mg, P = 0.008) and the weight-adjusted dose (3.85 mg vs 1.43 mg, P = 0.006) were significantly higher. The receiver operating characteristic curve showed that the best cutoff point for a faster response was 1.82 mg/kg.

SIGNIFICANCE

BRV is useful for the treatment of SE, even when patients are already being treated with LEV. The response rate seems higher when it is administered earlier and at higher doses (>1.82 mg/kg).

Brivaracetam efficacy and safety in focal epilepsy

Introduction: Brivaracetam (BRV) is an analog of levetiracetam (LEV) with 15-30 times greater affinity to SV2A and greater brain permeability than LEV. These properties have stimulated interest in its clinical trial data and post-marketing experience. Areas covered: The authors provide a background on epilepsy and its treatment, discuss the racetam family of antiepileptic drugs to which BRV belongs, and then discuss BRV properties and its efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of epilepsy. Expert opinion: While preclinical data suggest a broad spectrum of efficacy, BRV is only approved for focal epilepsy. The recommended starting dose is 100 mg per day, but in the absence of urgency, it may be prudent to start at 50 mg per day, considered the lowest effective dose. There was no added benefit when BRV was used adjunctively with LEV in clinical trials. However, post-marketing data suggest that some patients may experience improved seizure control when switching from LEV. Behavioral adverse effects seemed less common than with LEV, and most patients switched to BRV after experiencing behavioral adverse effects on LEV reported improvement. Prior or anticipated intolerability to LEV is the strongest indication for BRV in clinical practice.

A single-center, open-label positron emission tomography study to evaluate brivaracetam and levetiracetam synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A binding in healthy volunteers

OBJECTIVE

Brivaracetam (BRV) and levetiracetam (LEV) are antiepileptic drugs that bind synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A (SV2A). In vitro and in vivo animal studies suggest faster brain penetration and SV2A occupancy (SO) after dosing with BRV than LEV. We evaluated human brain penetration and SO time course of BRV and LEV at therapeutically relevant doses using the SV2A positron emission tomography (PET) tracer 11 C-UCB-J (EP0074; NCT02602860).

METHODS

Healthy volunteers were recruited into three cohorts. Cohort 1 (n = 4) was examined with PET at baseline and during displacement after intravenous BRV (100 mg) or LEV (1500 mg). Cohort 2 (n = 5) was studied during displacement and 4 hours postdose (BRV 50-200 mg or LEV 1500 mg). Cohort 3 (n = 4) was examined at baseline and steady state after 4 days of twice-daily oral dosing of BRV (50-100 mg) and 4 hours postdose of LEV (250-600 mg). Half-time of 11 C-UCB-J signal change was computed from displacement measurements. Half-saturation concentrations (IC50 ) were determined from calculated SO.

RESULTS

Observed tracer displacement half-times were 18 ± 6 minutes for BRV (100 mg, n = 4), 9.7 and 10.1 minutes for BRV (200 mg, n = 2), and 28 ± 6 minutes for LEV (1500 mg, n = 6). Estimated corrected half-times were 8 minutes shorter. The SO was 66%-70% for 100 mg intravenous BRV, 84%-85% for 200 mg intravenous BRV, and 78%-84% for intravenous 1500 mg LEV. The IC50 of BRV (0.46 μg/mL) was 8.7-fold lower than of LEV (4.02 μg/mL). BRV data fitted a single SO versus plasma concentration relationship. Steady state SO for 100 mg BRV was 86%-87% (peak) and 76%-82% (trough).

SIGNIFICANCE

BRV achieves high SO more rapidly than LEV when intravenously administered at therapeutic doses. Thus, BRV may have utility in treating acute seizures; further clinical studies are needed for confirmation.

Perampanel for treatment of status epilepticus in Austria, Finland, Germany, and Spain

OBJECTIVE

Novel treatments are needed to control treatment-resistant status epilepticus (SE). We report a summary of clinical cases where perampanel was used in established SE, refractory SE (RSE), or super-refractory SE (SRSE).

METHODS

Medical records were retrospectively reviewed for perampanel administration in SE at five European hospitals between 2011 and 2015.

RESULTS

Of 1319 patients identified as experiencing SE, 52 (3.9%) received perampanel. Median latency from SE onset to perampanel initiation was 10 days. Patients with SE had previously failed benzodiazepines (when received) and a median of five other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Median initial perampanel dose was 6 mg/d, up-titrated to a median maximum dose of 10 mg/d. Perampanel was the last drug added in 32/52 (61.5%) patients, with response attributed to perampanel in 19/52 (36.5%) patients. A greater proportion of perampanel non-responders had SRSE (51.5%; 17/33) vs perampanel responders (31.6%; 6/19), and had failed a higher mean number of AEDs before initiating perampanel (5.9 vs 5.1, respectively). Most commonly reported adverse effects during perampanel treatment were dizziness (n = 1 [1.9%]) and somnolence (n = 1 [1.9%]). No serious adverse effects were documented, and none led to discontinuation of perampanel.

CONCLUSIONS

Perampanel was administered to patients with established SE, RSE, or SRSE at greater initial doses than those administered in clinical practice to patients with epilepsy. The SE cases reported here represent a refractory and heterogeneous population, and rate of seizure cessation attributed to perampanel treatment (36.5%) represents a notable response. These data should be confirmed in a larger patient population.

Use of Newer Anticonvulsants for the Treatment of Status Epilepticus

Status epilepticus (SE) has a high mortality rate and is one of the most common neurologic emergencies. Fast progression of this neurologic emergency and lack of response to traditional antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in most cases has challenged clinicians to use new agents. This article evaluates the efficacy and safety of AEDs released to the market after 2000 for SE, refractory status epilepticus (RSE), and super-refractory status epilepticus (SRSE). The PubMed database was searched for clinical trials published between January 2000 and July 2018 using the search terms status epilepticus, refractory status epilepticus, super refractory status epilepticus, brivaracetam, clobazam, cannabidiol, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, perampanel, rufinamide, stiripentol, and zonisamide. Trials that evaluated these agents in adults with SE, RSE, and SRSE were included. Brivaracetam use was identified in two retrospective reviews with success rates of 27% and 57%. One unsuccessful case report of cannabidiol use in SE was found. Four clobazam studies were identified in SE and RSE with success rates ranging from 25-100%. No evidence for the use of eslicarbazepine and zonisamide was found. Using the search terms for lacosamide identified 38 articles: 1 systematic review, 5 prospective studies, 15 retrospective reviews, and 17 case reports. Success rates and dosing varied, but studies that included focal or partial types of SE showed higher success rates. Five articles were identified regarding perampanel use in this setting. Three were retrospective reviews with success rates ranging from 17-60%, and two were case reports. Only one case report regarding the use of rufinamide was found; rufinamide titrated up to 4.4 mg/day allowed discontinuation of barbiturate and clobazam. One case report and two case series of stiripentol were found with reported efficacy between 60% and 100% in SRSE. Evidence is currently insufficient to support the use of these agents in this setting.

Update in status epilepticus

Status epilepticus (SE) is a neurological emergency that requires urgent antiepileptic therapies, and a rapid treatment of its cause. In recent years, its definition has been updated to adapt it to all types of SE; this update helps to standardise the treatment. The new definition is based on two times: point t1, after which the event will not spontaneously cease, and period t2, after which neuronal damage may appear. There are three lines of treatment: first, benzodiazepines; second, antiepileptic drugs; and third, intravenous anaesthetics. The application of the different lines of treatment raises still unanswered questions, since the prognosis also depends on the aetiology, age and duration. For this reason, different prognostic scales are being developed to help us to assess its evolution and in turn, adapt the aggressiveness of the treatment to each patient.

Brivaracetam in the treatment of epilepsy: a review of clinical trial data

Brivaracetam (BRV), an analog of levetiracetam (LEV), was discovered during a target-based rational drug discovery program that aimed to identify potent synaptic vesicle protein 2A (SV2A) ligands. Among the 12,000 compounds screened in vitro, BRV was found to have 15-30 times greater affinity for SV2A and faster brain permeability than LEV. Although preclinical and post-marketing studies suggest broad spectrum of efficacy, BRV is currently only approved as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy of focal-onset seizures in patients age 4 years and older. This review examines the use of BRV as add-on (5-200 mg/day) therapy for epilepsy with a particular emphasis on the six regulatory randomized clinical trialsinvolving 2399 participants. Participants receiving BRV add-on at doses of 50-200 mg/day were more likely to experience a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (pooled risk ratio [RR]) 1.79 with 95% CI of 1.51-2.12) than those receiving placebo. Participants receiving BRV were also more likely to attain seizure freedom (57 [3.3%] vs 4 [0.5%]; RR 4.74, 95% CI 2.00-11.25) than those receiving placebo. In addition, BRV demonstrated a favorable safety profile similar to placebo across all BRV doses. Treatment emergent adverse events significantly associated with BRV were irritability, fatigue, somnolence, and dizziness. Post-hoc analysis of regulatory trials, post-marketing studies, and indirect comparison meta-analyses demonstrated equivalent efficacy and better tolerability of BRV when compared to other antiseizure drugs. Further, these studies appear to suggest that behavioral adverse events are likely to be less frequent and less severe with BRV than LEV. Therefore, switching to BRV may be considered for patients who have seizure control with LEV, but who cannot tolerate its behavioral adverse effects. In this setting, immediate switch from LEV to BRV at a 10:1-15:1 ratio without titration is feasible. Further research is needed to examine the long-term tolerability and efficacy of BRV as well as its role in the treatment of other types of epilepsies, particularly dementia-related epilepsy and brain tumor-related epilepsy.

Newer Antiepileptic Drugs for Status Epilepticus in Adults: What's the Evidence?

Status epilepticus (SE) is one of the most frequent neurological emergencies. Despite this, understanding of its pathophysiology and evidence regarding its management is limited. Rapid, effective, and well-tolerated treatment to achieve seizure cessation is advocated to prevent brain damage or potentially lethal outcomes. The last two decades have witnessed an exponential increase in the number of available antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). These compounds, especially lacosamide and levetiracetam, in view of their intravenous formulation, have been increasingly prescribed in SE. These and other newer AEDs present a promising profile in terms of tolerability, with few centrally depressive effects, favorable pharmacokinetic properties, and fewer drug interactions than classical AEDs; conversely, they are more expensive. There is still no clear evidence to suggest a specific beneficial impact of newer AEDs on SE outcome, preventing any strong recommendation regarding their prescription in SE. Further comparative studies are urgently required to clarify their place and optimal use in the armamentarium of SE treatment.