Adjunctive Brivaracetam in Older Patients with Focal Seizures: Evidence from the BRIVAracetam add‑on First Italian netwoRk Study (BRIVAFIRST)

Cenobamate efficacy in specific populations

Most people with epilepsy are able to achieve good seizure control with currently available medications. However, despite the development of more than 20 new antiseizure medications (ASMs) over the past 30 years, approximately one third of patients (both pediatric and adult) are treatment-resistant and at risk of increased morbidity and mortality, including sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. The management of epilepsy in these populations can be complex. Metabolic differences in older people and pediatric patients can alter drug metabolism, increasing the risk of adverse drug effects. Comorbid conditions, potential or existing polypharmacy, and age-related physiological changes need to be considered when treating these patients. Rare developmental epileptic encephalopathies such as Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome are typically diagnosed in childhood and have proven to be refractory to treatment and to have high mortality rates. Here, we provide an overview of ASM use in patients with refractory epilepsy, in older patients, and in pediatric patients, with a focus on the efficacy outcomes, safety, and tolerability observed with a newer ASM, cenobamate.

BRIVA-ONE study: 12-month outcomes of brivaracetam monotherapy in clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) monotherapy in a large series of patients with epilepsy.

METHOD

This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational, non-interventional study in 24 hospitals across Spain. Patients aged ≥18 years who started on BRV monotherapy, either as first-line or following conversion, at least 1 year before database closure were included. Patients were evaluated at baseline and at 3, 6 and 12 months after initiation of BRV monotherapy, in accordance with usual clinical practice at these centers. Data were collected retrospectively from patients' individual charts by participating physicians. The primary effectiveness and safety endpoints were the percentage of seizure-free patients 1 year after initiation of BRV monotherapy and the proportion of patients reporting adverse events (AEs) over the complete follow-up period. Retention rates and subpopulation analysis (levetiracetam switchers, elderly and different etiologies) were also investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 276 patients were included (48 with BRV as first-line monotherapy and 228 who converted to BRV monotherapy). The overall retention rate in monotherapy at 12 months was 89.9% (87.5% for first-line monotherapy group; 90.4% for conversion-to-monotherapy group). Seizure-freedom rates at 12 months were 77.8% (75% for first-line monotherapy group; 78.4% for conversion-to-monotherapy group). AEs occurred in 39.5% of patients at 12 months (35.4% for first-line monotherapy group; 40.4% for conversion-to-monotherapy group). Most AEs were mild-to-moderate. The most frequent AEs were irritability (12.3%) and dizziness (10.1%). The most frequent AEs leading to BRV withdrawal were dizziness (1.8%) and memory problems (1.4%). Similar outcomes in terms of effectiveness and tolerability of BRV monotherapy were observed in patients switching from levetiracetam, those with different epilepsy etiologies, and elderly patients.

SIGNIFICANCE

BRV was effective and well tolerated both as first-line monotherapy and following conversion to monotherapy in a real-world setting of patients with epilepsy.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

The goal of the medical treatment of epilepsy is to ensure best possible patient quality of life, by maximizing seizure control and minimizing medication toxicity. Brivaracetam (BRV) is a new-generation epilepsy treatment that is well tolerated by patients. In our study, monotherapy with BRV reduced seizures in patients who had not received other treatments and in patients who switched from a previous treatment to BRV monotherapy. BRV was well tolerated and also effective in sensitive patients (i.e., the elderly and those who had epilepsy caused by a brain tumor or a brain injury).

Current Role of Brivaracetam in the Management of Epilepsy in Adults and Children: A Systematic Review

Epilepsy, a neurological condition, has a devastating effect on the quality of life (QoL) of patients if left untreated. Brivaracetam (BRV), a third-generation antiepileptic drug (AED), acts by modulating synaptic vesicle proteins, making it a valuable addition to the arsenal of drugs for epilepsy management. This study aims to assess the efficacy, safety, and reasons for switching from prior AEDs to BRV in patients with epilepsy. A systematic electronic search was performed in PubMed and Google Scholar for English-language articles published from 1 June 2013 to 2 June 2023 on the safety, efficacy, and behavioral adverse effects (BAEs) of BRV when used as monotherapy, add-on therapy, and after switching from prior AEDs (switch therapy; along with reasons for switching to BRV from prior AEDs in adult and pediatric populations), irrespective of the route of administration. A qualitative assessment was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tool. A qualitative synthesis of the data was performed. Sixty-one articles involving a total of 15,186 patients with epilepsy were included for qualitative synthesis. In adults, seizure reduction was reported in 31.4%-72.0%, 4.4%-82.1%, and 6.8%-54.3% of patients; seizure freedom in 12.10%-25.6%, 2.0%-80%, and 6.5%-30.6% of patients; and a responder rate of ≥50% in 30.8%, 21.9%-83.8%, and 16.7%-69.1% of patients with monotherapy, add-on therapy, and after switch therapy, respectively. In the pediatric population, seizure reduction was reported in 39.1%‍-‍62.5% and 21%-59% of patients, seizure freedom in 4.4%-37.5% and 12% of patients, and a responder rate of ≥50% in 19.7%-65% and 21%-45.2% of patients with add-on therapy and after switch therapy, respectively. BAEs such as irritability, mood changes, emotional lability, aggression, and agitation were reported in adults for all types of therapies, while anger was reported with only monotherapy and add-on therapy, hyperactivity with add-on therapy, and agitation with monotherapy and add-on therapy with BRV. In the pediatric population, irritability and aggression were reported with add-on and switch therapies, while emotional lability was reported with only switch therapy with BRV. The reasons for switching to BRV from previous AEDs were lack of efficacy and treatment-related adverse effects (AEs). BRV has a favorable efficacy and safety profile. The drug reduces seizure frequency, provides seizure freedom, and achieves a ≥50% responder rate in adult and pediatric patients with add-on therapy and after switching to BRV from other AEDs. However, there is limited evidence supporting its use as monotherapy.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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

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

Perampanel as only add-on epilepsy treatment in elderly: A subgroup analysis of real-world data from retrospective, multicenter, observational study

INTRODUCTION

Drug management of epilepsy in the elderly presents unique but data on this population are scarce. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) used as only add-on to a background anti-seizure medication (ASM) in the elderly in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We performed a subgroup analysis of patients aged ≥65 years included in a previous 12-month multicenter study on adults. Treatment discontinuation, seizure frequency, and adverse events were recorded at 3, 6 and 12 months after PER introduction. Sub-analyses by early (≤1 previous ASM) or late PER add-on were also conducted.

RESULTS

The sample included 65 subjects (mean age: 75.7 ± 7.2 years), with mainly focal (73.8%) epilepsy. The mean PER daily dose was ≈4 mg during all follow-up. Retention rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 90.5%, 89.6%, and 79.4%ly. The baseline median normalized per 28-day seizure number significantly decreased at 3-, 6- and 12-month visits. One year after PER introduction, the responder rate (≥50% reduction in baseline seizure frequency) was 89.7%, with a seizure freedom rate of 72.4%. Adverse events occurred in 22 (34.9%) patients with dizziness and irritability being the most frequent. No major differences between early (41 patients, 63.1%), and late add-on groups were observed.

CONCLUSION

Adjunctive PER was effective and well-tolerated when used as only add-on treatment in elderly people with epilepsy in clinical practice, thus representing a suitable therapeutic option in this age category.

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.

The clinical correlation between Alzheimer's disease and epilepsy

Alzheimer's disease and epilepsy are common nervous system diseases in older adults, and their incidence rates tend to increase with age. Patients with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease are more prone to have seizures. In patients older than 65 years, neurodegenerative conditions accounted for ~10% of all late-onset epilepsy cases, most of which are Alzheimer's disease. Epilepsy and seizure can occur in the early and late stages of Alzheimer's disease, leading to functional deterioration and behavioral alterations. Seizures promote amyloid-β and tau deposits, leading to neurodegenerative processes. Thus, there is a bi-directional association between Alzheimer's disease and epilepsy. Epilepsy is a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease and, in turn, Alzheimer's disease is an independent risk factor for developing epilepsy in old age. Many studies have evaluated the shared pathogenesis and clinical relevance of Alzheimer's disease and epilepsy. In this review, we discuss the clinical associations between Alzheimer's disease and epilepsy, including their incidence, clinical features, and electroencephalogram abnormalities. Clinical studies of the two disorders in recent years are summarized, and new antiepileptic drugs used for treating Alzheimer's disease are reviewed.