Sustained seizure freedom with adjunctive brivaracetam in patients with focal‐onset seizures

Brivaracetam effectiveness and tolerability in older and younger adults with epilepsy: EXPERIENCE, a pooled analysis of international data from retrospective studies

This analysis assessed the effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in older (≥65 years of age) and younger (≥16 to <65 years of age) adults with epilepsy. This was a subgroup analysis from EXPERIENCE/EPD332, a pooled analysis of individual patient records from multiple independent, non-interventional studies of patients with epilepsy starting BRV in Australia, Europe, and the United States. Included patients had ≥6 months of follow-up data. Outcomes included responders (≥50 % reduction from baseline in seizure frequency), seizure freedom (no seizures within 3 months before the time point), and continuous seizure freedom (no seizures from baseline) at 12 months; BRV discontinuation during the whole study follow-up; and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Patients with missing data after BRV discontinuation were deemed non-responders/not seizure-free. Analysis populations included the Full Analysis Set (FAS; patients who received ≥1 BRV dose and had seizure type and age documented at baseline) and the modified FAS (FAS patients who had ≥1 seizure recorded during baseline). The FAS was used for all outcomes except seizure reduction. The FAS included 147 (8.9 %) patients aged ≥65 years and 1497 (91.1 %) aged ≥16 to <65 years. Compared with the younger subgroup, patients aged ≥65 years had a longer median epilepsy duration (33.0 years [n = 144] vs 17.0 years [n = 1460]) and lower median seizure frequency at index (2.0 seizures/28 days [n = 129] vs 4.0 seizures/28 days [n = 1256]), and less commonly had >1 prior antiseizure medication (106/141 [75.2 %] vs 1265/1479 [85.5 %]). At 12 months, a numerically higher percentage of patients aged ≥65 years versus the younger subgroup achieved ≥50 % seizure reduction (46.5 % [n = 71] vs 36.0 % [n = 751]), seizure freedom (26.0 % [n = 100] vs 13.9 % [n = 1011]), and continuous seizure freedom (22.0 % [n = 100] vs 10.7 % [n = 1011]). During the whole study follow-up, 43/147 (29.3 %) patients aged ≥65 years and 508/1492 (34.0 %) aged ≥16 to <65 years discontinued BRV. The incidence of TEAEs since the prior visit was similar in both subgroups at 3 months (≥65 years vs ≥16 to <65 years: 38/138 [27.5 %] vs 356/1404 [25.4 %]), 6 months (19/119 [16.0 %] vs 176/1257 [14.0 %]), and 12 months (8/104 [7.7 %] vs 107/1128 [9.5 %]). This real-world analysis suggests BRV was effective in patients aged ≥65 years and ≥16 to <65 years, with numerically higher effectiveness in the older subgroup. BRV was well tolerated in both subgroups.

Impact of Third-Generation Antiseizure Medications on People with Epilepsy in a Low-Income Population: The Brivaracetam Experience in a Real-World Study

BACKGROUND

Third-generation antiseizure medications, such as brivaracetam, are recognized for their superior safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic profiles. However, their potential benefits are often limited in low-income populations because of challenges related to availability and affordability.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of brivaracetam for treating epilepsy in a low-income population, within a real-world setting.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included individuals with epilepsy from a low-income population in Bogotá, Colombia, who were treated with brivaracetam between January 2020 and July 2023. Effectiveness (mean seizure reduction and ≥ 50% seizure reduction) and safety (retention rate and adverse events) were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 106 individuals were included, with a median age of 33 years (interquartile range: 24-44). Most had focal epilepsy with a median disease duration of 25.4 years (standard deviation: 13.6). The baseline seizure frequency was 4 seizures per month (interquartile range: 2-15) and individuals had previously received a mean of 4.4 (standard deviation: 1.8) antiseizure medications. The mean percentage seizure reduction at 3, 6, and 12 months was 55.3%, 66.9%, and 63.8%, respectively. Additionally, 60%, 63.8%, and 65.9% of individuals achieved a ≥ 50% seizure reduction at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Retention rate at 3 months was 89% (n = 95) and 18.7% (n = 20) reported adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world setting, brivaracetam has been shown to be safe and effective for the treatment of epilepsy in individuals from a low-income population. This study suggests that people with epilepsy living in this context can significantly benefit from the use of third-generation antiseizure medications.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Adjunctive cenobamate in people with focal onset seizures: Insights from the Italian Expanded Access Program

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to assess the effectiveness/tolerability of adjunctive cenobamate, variations in the load of concomitant antiseizure medications (ASMs) and predictors of clinical response in people with focal epilepsy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study at 21 centers participating in the Italian Expanded Access Program. Effectiveness outcomes included retention and responder rates (≥50% and 100% reduction in baseline seizure frequency). Tolerability/safety outcomes included the rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) and their incidence. Total drug load was quantified as the number of concomitant ASMs and total defined daily dose (DDD). Concomitant ASMs were also classified according to their mechanism of action and pharmacokinetic interactions to perform explorative subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 236 subjects with a median age of 38 (Q1-Q3 = 27-49) years were included. At 12 months, cenobamate retention rate was 78.8% and responders were 57.5%. The seizure freedom rates during the preceding 3 months were 9.8%, 12.2%, 16.3%, and 14.0% at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. A higher percentage of responders was observed among subjects treated with clobazam, although the difference was not statistically significant. A total of 223 AEs were recorded in 133 of 236 participants, leading to cenobamate discontinuation in 8.5% cases. At 12 months, a reduction of one or two concomitant ASMs occurred in 42.6% and 4.3% of the subjects. The median total DDD of all concomitant ASMs decreased from 3.34 (Q1-Q3 = 2.50-4.47) at baseline to 2.50 (Q1-Q3 = 1.67-3.50) at 12 months (p < .001, median percentage reduction = 22.2%). The highest rates of cotreatment withdrawal and reductions in the DDD were observed for sodium channel blockers and γ-aminobutyric acidergic modulators (above all for those linked to pharmacokinetic interactions), and perampanel.

SIGNIFICANCE

Adjunctive cenobamate was associated with a reduction in seizure frequency and in the burden of concomitant ASMs in adults with difficult-to-treat focal epilepsy. The type of ASM associated did not influence effectiveness except for a favorable trend with clobazam.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam in adult Asian patients with uncontrolled focal-onset seizures: A phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV) in adult Asian patients with focal-onset seizures (FOS).

METHODS

Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (EP0083; NCT03083665) evaluating BRV 50 mg/day and 200 mg/day in patients (≥16-80 years) with FOS with/without secondary generalization (focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures) despite current treatment with 1 or 2 concomitant antiseizure medications. Following an 8-week baseline, patients were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo, BRV 50 mg/day, or BRV 200 mg/day, and entered a 12-week treatment period. Efficacy outcomes: percent reduction over placebo in 28-day FOS frequency (primary); 50% responder rate in FOS frequency; median percent reduction in FOS frequency from baseline; seizure freedom during treatment period (secondary). Primary safety endpoints: incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); TEAEs leading to discontinuation; serious TEAEs.

RESULTS

In this study, 448/449 randomized patients (mean age, 34.5 years; 53.8% female) received ≥1 dose of study medication (placebo/BRV 50 mg/BRV 200 mg/day: n = 149/151/148). Percent reduction over placebo in 28-day adjusted FOS frequency was 24.5% (p = 0.0005) and 33.4% (p < 0.0001) with BRV 50 mg/day and 200 mg/day, respectively, 50% responder rate was 19.0%, 41.1%, and 49.3% with placebo, BRV 50 mg/day, and BRV 200 mg/day, respectively (p < 0.0001 for both BRV groups vs. placebo). Median percent reduction in FOS frequency from baseline was 21.3%/38.9%/46.7% in patients on placebo/BRV 50 mg/BRV 200 mg/day, respectively. Overall, 0, 7 (4.6%), and 10 (6.8%) patients were classified as seizure-free during the treatment period on placebo, BRV 50 mg/day, and BRV 200 mg/day, respectively (p = 0.0146/p = 0.0017 for BRV 50 mg/200 mg/day vs. placebo, respectively). TEAE incidences were similar between patients on placebo (58.4%) and all patients receiving BRV (58.5%); TEAE incidences for BRV 50 mg/day and BRV 200 mg/day were 57.0% and 60.1%, respectively. Overall, 0.7% of patients on placebo and 2.0% of all patients on BRV reported serious TEAEs (incidences for BRV 50 mg/day and BRV 200 mg/day were 1.3% and 2.7%, respectively), 20.1% of patients on placebo and 33.1% of all patients on BRV reported drug-related TEAEs (incidences for BRV 50 mg/day and BRV 200 mg/day were 26.5% and 39.9%, respectively), and 4.7% of patients on placebo and 3.0% of all patients on BRV discontinued due to TEAEs (discontinuation incidences for BRV 50 mg/day and BRV 200 mg/day were 2.6% and 3.4%, respectively).

SIGNIFICANCE

Adjunctive BRV was efficacious and well tolerated in adult Asian patients with FOS. Efficacy and safety profiles were consistent with BRV studies in predominantly non-Asian populations.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Brivaracetam is used to treat partial or focal seizures in people with epilepsy. Most studies with brivaracetam tablets have involved people from non-Asian racial backgrounds. In this study, 449 Asian adults with epilepsy took part. One third took 50 mg of brivaracetam, one third took 200 mg of brivaracetam, and one third took a placebo each day for 12 weeks. On average, those who took brivaracetam had fewer seizures than those given the placebo. Most of the side effects were mild and the number and type of side effects seen were as expected for this medication.

A profile of azetukalner for the treatment of epilepsy: from pharmacology to potential for therapy

INTRODUCTION

Epilepsies are a group of heterogeneous brain disorder, and antiseizure medications (ASMs) are the mainstay of treatment. Despite the availability of more than 30 drugs, at least one third of individuals with epilepsy are drug-resistant. This emphasizes the need for novel compounds that combine efficacy with improved tolerability.

AREAS COVERED

A literature review on the pharmacology, efficacy, tolerability, and safety of azetukalner (XEN1101), a second-generation opener of neuronal potassium channels currently in Phase 3 development as ASM.

EXPERT OPINION

Results from the phase 2b clinical trial strongly support the ongoing clinical development of azetukalner as a new ASM. Its pharmacokinetic properties support convenient once-daily dosing, eliminating the need for titration at initiation or tapering at the conclusion of treatment. CYP3A4 is the main enzyme involved in its metabolism and drug-drug interactions can affect the drug exposure. Preliminary analysis of an ongoing open-label study reveals no reported pigmentary abnormalities. The upcoming Phase 3 clinical trials are expected to provide further insight into the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of azetukalner in treating focal-onset and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Structurally distinct from currently marketed ASMs, azetukalner has the potential to be the only-in-class Kv7.2/7.3 opener on the market upon regulatory approval.

Conversion to Brivaracetam Monotherapy in Clinical Practice: A Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

The study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of brivaracetam (BRV) as conversion monotherapy in adults with focal epilepsy treated in the context of real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational, non-interventional study in adults with focal epilepsy who converted to BRV monotherapy following the withdrawal of background antiseizure medications (ASMs). Primary effectiveness outcome was the retention rate of BRV as single ASM at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included the 6- and 12-month rates of seizure freedom. Safety and tolerability outcomes included the frequency and type of adverse events (AEs) and the occurrence of treatment discontinuation due to AEs.

RESULTS

A total of 44 participants with a median age of 63.5 (interquartile range 44-73.5) years were included; 17 subjects were seizure free at baseline, and 9 of them switched from levetiracetam because of lack of tolerability. The retention rate of BRV monotherapy was 88.6% (39/44) at 6 months and 83.9% (26/31) at 12 months. The rates of seizure freedom were 72.7% (32/44) in subjects with 6-month follow-up and 58.1% (18/31) in subjects with 12-month follow-up. The median maintenance dosage of BRV monotherapy was 150 (100-200) mg/day at 6 months and 125 (100-200) mg/day in subjects with 12-month follow-up. Adverse events were recorded in 6/44 (13.6%) participants and led to BRV discontinuation in 2/44 (4.5%) cases. The reported AEs were somnolence (n = 3), fatigue (n = 2), and irritability (n = 1); no serious AEs were experienced. In 21/44 (47.7%) participants, BRV monotherapy resulted from the direct switch from levetiracetam. The rates of treatment retention and seizure freedom at 6 and 12 months were higher among people who switched from levetiracetam to BRV monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Brivaracetam may be a valuable treatment of focal seizures in people who converted to monotherapy in a real-life setting.

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.

Retention, efficacy, tolerability, and quality of life during long-term adjunctive brivaracetam treatment by number of lifetime antiseizure medications: A post hoc analysis of phase 3 trials in adults with focal seizures

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate long-term retention, reasons for discontinuation, efficacy, tolerability, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) during adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV) treatment in adults with focal seizures by number of lifetime antiseizure medications (ASMs).

METHODS

Post hoc analyses of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (N01358; NCT01261325) and corresponding open-label extension (OLE) (N01379; NCT01339559) of adjunctive BRV in adults (16-80 years of age) with focal seizures. Outcomes were assessed from the first day of BRV treatment in the double-blind (patients randomized to BRV) or open-label trial (patients randomized to placebo) by number of lifetime ASMs (1-2, 3-4, 5-6, or ≥ 7). Lifetime ASMs were defined as previous (stopped before BRV initiation) and concomitant ASMs at BRV initiation.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and forty patients received adjunctive BRV (safety set [SS]; median modal dose: 200 mg/day [N = 737]; median treatment duration: 2.67 years), of whom 13.8 % had 1-2, 20.8 % had 3-4, 21.1 % had 5-6 and 44.3 % had ≥7 lifetime ASMs. Patients with a higher number of lifetime ASMs had a younger age at epilepsy onset, longer epilepsy duration, and higher baseline seizure frequency. Kaplan-Meier estimated retention on BRV at 12 (83.2-65.9 %) and 36 months (63.0-44.1 %) was highest in patients with 1-2 lifetime ASMs and decreased with the number of lifetime ASMs. The estimated proportions of patients who discontinued BRV due to lack of efficacy or treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) increased with the number of lifetime ASMs. Efficacy analyses included seven hundred and thirty eight patients (intention-to-treat set [ITT]). Median percentage reductions from baseline in focal seizure frequency/28 days (76.3-39.6 %), 50 % responder rates (66.7-39.8 %), 75 % responder rates (51.0-19.6 %), and continuous seizure freedom for ≥12 months at any time during BRV treatment (35.3-6.1 %) were highest in patients with 1-2 lifetime ASMs and decreased by the number of lifetime ASMs. The overall incidence of TEAEs (SS) was generally similar in each lifetime ASM subgroup (84.4-90.5 %). Discontinuations due to TEAEs increased with the number of lifetime ASMs (7.8-20.1 %). The greatest improvements in QOLIE-31-P scores occurred in the Seizure Worry and Daily Activities/Social Function subscales, with no clear pattern by the number of lifetime ASMs at 12 months and with the highest improvement in patients with 1-2 lifetime ASMs at 24 months. At 24 months, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Anxiety subscale scores improved in patients (SS) with 1-2 and 3-4 lifetime ASMs. HADS Depression subscale scores were generally stable independent of the number of lifetime ASMs.

CONCLUSIONS

The balance between efficacy, tolerability, and HRQOL was most favorable in patients with focal seizures who had been exposed to one or two ASMs before BRV initiation. However, patients exposed to ≥7 ASMs before BRV initiation also benefitted from long-term adjunctive BRV treatment.

Impact of epilepsy and its treatment on brain metastasis from solid tumors: A retrospective study

Introduction

Retrospective observational study on medical records of patients with epilepsy related brain metastases (BM) to evaluate efficacy, safety and possible interaction with cancer treatment of different anti-seizure medications (ASMs) and the risk of seizures.

Materials and methods

We consecutively reviewed all medical records of epilepsy-related BM patients from 2010 to 2020 who were followed for at least one month at the Brain Tumour-related Epilepsy Center of the IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute Rome, Italy.

Results

We selected 111 cancer patients. Of these, only 42 had at least undergone a second neurological examination. In the whole population, 95 (85.2%) had seizures and 16 patients had no seizures (14.4%). The most frequently first ASM prescribed was LEV (40.5%). We observed a significant correlation between tumor site and probability of having seizures, but not between seizure type and age (>65 or <65 years). Among 42 patients, 26 were administered levetiracetam, followed by oxcarbazepine. Until the last follow-up, 19 never changed the first ASM, maintained the same dosage and remained seizure free. After a median of 7 months, 16 (38.1%) required changes in therapeutic treatment due to inefficacy. At the last follow-up, 24 patients (57.1%) were seizure free. Eighteen patients (42.8%) never achieved freedom from seizures despite had at least 2 therapy changes. Two patients changed ASM due to adverse events and 1 to phenobarbital owing to the interaction with cancer treatment. The mean daily dose of first ASM in all 42 patients was very close to the Defined Daily Dose (DDD).

Conclusion

In BM patients seizure incidence could be underestimated; a team evaluation performed by oncologist and neurologist together, could guarantee an accurate taking care of both oncological illness and epilepsy, in this fragile patient population. More than 50% of our patients respond to monotherapy with new generation ASMs. Furthermore we deemed in patients receiving chemotherapy the choice of ASM should consider possible interactions with antitumor therapies, for this reason newer generation ASMs should be the preferred choice. It is necessary to get close to the DDD before considering an ASM ineffective in seizure control.