Adjunctive retigabine in refractory focal epilepsy: Postmarketing experience at four tertiary epilepsy care centers in Germany

Long-term efficacy, tolerability, and retention of brivaracetam in epilepsy treatment: A longitudinal multicenter study with up to 5 years of follow-up

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to evaluate the long-term efficacy, retention, and tolerability of add-on brivaracetam (BRV) in clinical practice.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective cohort study recruited all patients who initiated BRV between February and November 2016, with observation until February 2021.

RESULTS

Long-term data for 262 patients (mean age = 40 years, range = 5-81 years, 129 men) were analyzed, including 227 (87%) diagnosed with focal epilepsy, 19 (7%) with genetic generalized epilepsy, and 16 (6%) with other or unclassified epilepsy syndromes. Only 26 (10%) patients had never received levetiracetam (LEV), whereas 133 (50.8%) were switched from LEV. The length of BRV exposure ranged from 1 day to 5 years, with a median retention time of 1.6 years, resulting in a total BRV exposure time of 6829 months (569 years). The retention rate was 61.1% at 12 months, with a reported efficacy of 33.1% (79/239; 50% responder rate, 23 patients lost-to-follow-up), including 10.9% reported as seizure-free. The retention rate for the entire study period was 50.8%, and at last follow-up, 133 patients were receiving BRV at a mean dose of 222 ± 104 mg (median = 200, range = 25-400), including 52 (39.1%) who exceeded the recommended upper dose of 200 mg. Fewer concomitant antiseizure medications and switching from LEV to BRV correlated with better short-term responses, but no investigated parameters correlated with positive long-term outcomes. BRV was discontinued in 63 (24%) patients due to insufficient efficacy, in 29 (11%) for psychobehavioral adverse events, in 25 (10%) for other adverse events, and in 24 (9%) for other reasons.

SIGNIFICANCE

BRV showed a clinically useful 50% responder rate of 33% at 12 months and overall retention of >50%, despite 90% of included patients having previous LEV exposure. BRV was well tolerated; however, psychobehavioral adverse events occurred in one out of 10 patients. Although we identified short-term response and retention predictors, we could not identify significant predictors for long-term outcomes.

An Updated Overview on Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Recent Antiepileptic Drugs

Given the distinctive characteristics of both epilepsy and antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) can make a significant contribution to the field of epilepsy. The measurement and interpretation of serum drug concentrations can be of benefit in the treatment of uncontrollable seizures and in cases of clinical toxicity; it can aid in the individualization of therapy and in adjusting for variable or nonlinear pharmacokinetics; and can be useful in special populations such as pregnancy. This review examines the potential for TDM of newer AEDs such as eslicarbazepine acetate, felbamate, gabapentin, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, perampanel, pregabalin, rufinamide, retigabine, stiripentol, tiagabine, topiramate, vigabatrin, and zonisamide. We describe the relationships between serum drug concentration, clinical effect, and adverse drug reactions for each AED as well as the different analytical methods used for serum drug quantification. We discuss retrospective studies and prospective data on the serum drug concentration-efficacy of these drugs and present the pharmacokinetic parameters, oral bioavailability, reference concentration range, and active metabolites of newer AEDs. Limited data are available for recent AEDs, and we discuss the connection between drug concentrations in terms of clinical efficacy and nonresponse. Although we do not propose routine TDM, serum drug measurement can play a beneficial role in patient management and treatment individualization. Standardized studies designed to assess, in particular, concentration-efficacy-toxicity relationships for recent AEDs are urgently required.

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

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate factors predicting efficacy, retention, and tolerability of add-on brivaracetam (BRV) in clinical practice.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective cohort study recruiting all patients who started BRV between February and November 2016 with observation time between 3 and 12 months.

RESULTS

Of a total of 262 patients (mean age 40, range 5-81 years, 129 male) treated with BRV, 227 (87%) were diagnosed to have focal, 19 (7%) idiopathic generalized and 8 (3%) symptomatic generalized epilepsy, whereas 8 (3%) were unclassified. The length of exposure to BRV ranged from 1 day to 12 months, with a median retention time of 6.1 months, resulting in a total exposure time to BRV of 1,504 months. The retention rate was 79.4% at 3 months and 75.8% at 6 months. Efficacy at 3 months was 41.2% (50% responder rate) with 14.9% seizure-free for 3 months and, at 6 months, 40.5% with 15.3% seizure-free. Treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 37.8% of the patients, with the most common being somnolence, dizziness, and behavioral adverse events (BAEs). BAE that presented under previous levetiracetam (LEV) treatment improved upon switch to BRV in 57.1% (20/35) and LEV-induced somnolence improved in 70.8% (17/24). Patients with BAE on LEV were more likely to develop BAE on BRV (odds ratio [OR] 3.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53-7.95).

SIGNIFICANCE

BRV in broad clinical postmarketing use is a well-tolerated anticonvulsant drug with 50% responder rates, similar to those observed in the regulatory trials, even though 90% of the patients included had previously been exposed to LEV. An immediate switch from LEV to BRV at a ratio of 10:1 to 15:1 is feasible. The only independent significant predictor of efficacy was the start of BRV in patients not currently taking LEV. The occurrence of BAE during previous LEV exposure predicted poor psychobehavioral tolerability of BRV treatment. A switch to BRV can be considered in patients with LEV-induced BAE.

[Impact of early benefit assessment on patients with epilepsy in Germany: Current healthcare provision and therapeutic needs]

Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurological diseases and represents a significant burden for patients, their families and society. In more than 75 % of patients anticonvulsant therapy consists of valproate, carbamazepine, lamotrigine or levetiracetam. There is a need for polytherapy in drug-refractory patients and they suffer from negative effects on quality of life and employment that is associated with high indirect costs. To allow a comprehensive treatment in this patient group, access to new anticonvulsants with novel modes of action is needed; however, all applications for new antiepileptic drugs failed to prove added benefits during the Pharmaceutical Market Restructuring Act (AMNOG) in Germany. One of the main reasons is the mandatory definition of a standard comparative therapy. It remains unclear whether there will be studies in the future which will fulfill the requirements of the current version of AMNOG. Observational studies after approval and marketing of new antiepileptic drugs could be better alternatives to prove added benefits for individual patients in the current German healthcare system.