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

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.

Time-course of drug-related psychiatric and behavioral treatment-emergent adverse events during brivaracetam treatment in adults with focal-onset seizures

OBJECTIVE

We previously analyzed data from three phase lll trials of adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV) in adults showing that the incidence and prevalence of drug-related central nervous system treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) quickly peaked and decreased over several weeks following BRV treatment initiation. However, that analysis did not assess psychiatric and behavioral side effects which can occur with antiseizure medication (ASM) treatment. Here, we investigate the time-course of psychiatric and behavioral TEAEs by week of BRV treatment and how these TEAEs were managed.

METHODS

Data were pooled from three trials (N01252 [NCT00490035]; N01253 [NCT00464269]; N01358 [NCT01261325]) in adult patients (≥16 years of age) with focal-onset seizures receiving BRV adjunctive therapy. This post hoc analysis reports data on the incidence and prevalence of drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs over time in patients who received BRV doses of 50-200 mg/day (without titration) or placebo (PBO) during the 12-week treatment period. A logistic regression model was used to determine if psychiatric or behavioral comorbid conditions were predictors for drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs, or BRV discontinuation due to psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs.

RESULTS

A total of 803 patients received BRV 50-200 mg/day, and 459 patients received PBO. Drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs were reported by 11.0 % of patients during adjunctive BRV treatment (PBO: 4.8 %) with onset early after BRV initiation (median time to onset of first drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAE: 15 days). Incidence peaked at week 1 and decreased over the first 4 weeks following BRV initiation. Prevalence peaked at week 4 and then remained stable between weeks 5-12. In an analysis excluding patients on concomitant levetiracetam (BRV: n = 744; PBO: n = 422), the incidence of drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs was similar to the incidence in the overall population. The most common drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs were irritability, insomnia, depression, and anxiety. Only 2 % of patients discontinued BRV due to psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs (PBO: 1.3 %), while most patients on BRV who reported drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs did not require a change in dose (84.1 %; PBO: 63.6 %). A history of psychiatric or behavioral comorbid conditions (not ongoing at BRV initiation) was not associated with an increased likelihood of drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs, or BRV discontinuation due to psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs. Ongoing psychiatric or behavioral comorbid conditions at BRV initiation increased the likelihood of drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs, but not the likelihood of BRV discontinuation due to psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug-related psychiatric and behavioral TEAEs occurred early during BRV treatment, and most patients did not require a change in BRV dose. These data can help guide clinician monitoring and patient expectations after starting BRV.

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.

The efficacy and safety of third-generation antiseizure medications and non-invasive brain stimulation to treat refractory epilepsy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis study

Background

The new antiseizure medications (ASMs) and non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) are controversial in controlling seizures. So, this network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of five third-generation ASMs and two NIBS therapies for the treatment of refractory epilepsy.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases. Brivaracetam (BRV), cenobamate (CNB), eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), lacosamide (LCM), perampanel (PER), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) were selected as additional treatments for refractory epilepsy in randomized controlled studies and other cohort studies. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on studies that evaluated the efficacy or safety of medication and non-invasive brain stimulation and included patients with seizures were uncontrolled by one or more concomitant ASMs were identified. A random effects model was used to incorporate possible heterogeneity. The primary outcome was the change in seizure frequency from baseline, and secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients with ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency, and the rate of treatment-emergent adverse events.

Results

Forty-five studies were analyzed. The five ASMs and two NIBS decreased seizure frequency from baseline compared with placebo. The 50% responder rates of the five antiseizure drugs were significantly higher than that of placebo, and the ASMs were associated with fewer adverse events than placebo (p < 0.05). The surface under the cumulative ranking analysis revealed that ESL was most effective in decreasing the seizure frequency from baseline, whereas CNB provided the best 50% responder rate. BRV was the best tolerated. No significant publication bias was identified for each outcome index.

Conclusion

The five third-generation ASMs were more effective in controlling seizures than placebo, among which CNB, ESL, and LCM were most effective, and BRV exhibited better safety. Although rTMS and tDCS did not reduce seizure frequency as effectively as the five drugs, their safety was confirmed.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ (CRD42023441097).

Antiseizure medications for idiopathic generalized epilepsies: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of antiseizure medications (ASMs), both as monotherapies and adjunctive therapies, for idiopathic generalized epilepsies (IGEs) and related entities.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for relevant randomized controlled trials from December 2022 to February 2023. Studies on the efficacy and safety of ASM monotherapies or adjunctive therapies for IGEs and related entities-including juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, childhood absence epilepsy (CAE), juvenile absence epilepsy, or generalized tonic-clonic seizures alone (GTCA)-were included. Efficacy outcomes were the proportions of patients remaining seizure free for 1, 3, 6, and 12 months; safety outcomes were the proportions of any treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and TEAEs leading to discontinuation. Network meta-analyses were performed in a random-effects model to obtain odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Rankings of ASMs were based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). This study is registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42022372358).

RESULTS

Twenty-eight randomized controlled trials containing 4282 patients were included. As monotherapies, all ASMs were more effective than placebo, and valproate and ethosuximide were significantly better than lamotrigine. According to the SUCRA for efficacy, ethosuximide ranked first for CAE, whereas valproate ranked first for other types of IGEs. As adjunctive therapies, topiramate ranked best for GTCA as well as overall for IGEs, while levetiracetam ranked best for myoclonic seizures. For safety, perampanel ranked best (measured by any TEAE).

CONCLUSIONS

All of the studied ASMs were more effective than placebo. Valproate monotherapy ranked best overall for IGEs, whereas ethosuximide ranked best for CAE. Adjunctive topiramate and levetiracetam were most effective for GTCA and myoclonic seizures, respectively. Furthermore, perampanel had the best tolerability.

[Guidelines for the management of adverse effects of anti-seizure medications (2023)]

Epilepsy is a prevalent neurological disorder with a complex etiology and an unclear pathogenesis. In order to standardize the management of adverse effects caused by anti-seizure medications (ASMs), the Youth Committee of the Chinese Association Against Epilepsy (CAAE), in collaboration with the CAAE Precision Medicines and Adverse Effect Monitoring Committee, has developed a guideline: guidelines for the management of adverse effects of anti-seizure medications (2023). This guideline addresses 13 clinical questions related to the management of adverse effects of ASMs in the nervous system, cardiovascular system, and fetus. Its primary objective is to provide guidance to medical professionals specializing in pediatric neurology, neurology, and neurosurgery in China, and to facilitate their clinical practice.

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.

Psychobehavioural and Cognitive Adverse Events of Anti-Seizure Medications for the Treatment of Developmental and Epileptic Encephalopathies

The developmental and epileptic encephalopathies encompass a group of rare syndromes characterised by severe drug-resistant epilepsy with onset in childhood and significant neurodevelopmental comorbidities. The latter include intellectual disability, developmental delay, behavioural problems including attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder, psychiatric problems including anxiety and depression, speech impairment and sleep problems. Classical examples of developmental and epileptic encephalopathies include Dravet syndrome, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and tuberous sclerosis complex. The mainstay of treatment is with multiple anti-seizure medications (ASMs); however, the ASMs themselves can be associated with psychobehavioural adverse events, and effects (negative or positive) on cognition and sleep. We have performed a targeted literature review of ASMs commonly used in the treatment of developmental and epileptic encephalopathies to discuss the latest evidence on their effects on behaviour, mood, cognition, sedation and sleep. The ASMs include valproate (VPA), clobazam, topiramate (TPM), cannabidiol (CBD), fenfluramine (FFA), levetiracetam (LEV), brivaracetam (BRV), zonisamide (ZNS), perampanel (PER), ethosuximide, stiripentol, lamotrigine (LTG), rufinamide, vigabatrin, lacosamide (LCM) and everolimus. Bromide, felbamate and other sodium channel ASMs are discussed briefly. Overall, the current evidence suggest that LEV, PER and to a lesser extent BRV are associated with psychobehavioural adverse events including aggressiveness and irritability; TPM and to a lesser extent ZNS are associated with language impairment and cognitive dulling/memory problems. Patients with a history of behavioural and psychiatric comorbidities may be more at risk of developing psychobehavioural adverse events. Topiramate and ZNS may be associated with negative effects in some aspects of cognition; CBD, FFA, LEV, BRV and LTG may have some positive effects, while the remaining ASMs do not appear to have a detrimental effect. All the ASMs are associated with sedation to a certain extent, which is pronounced during uptitration. Cannabidiol, PER and pregabalin may be associated with improvements in sleep, LTG is associated with insomnia, while VPA, TPM, LEV, ZNS and LCM do not appear to have detrimental effects. There was variability in the extent of evidence for each ASM: for many first-generation and some second-generation ASMs, there is scant documented evidence; however, their extensive use suggests favourable tolerability and safety (e.g. VPA); second-generation and some third-generation ASMs tend to have the most robust evidence documented over several years of use (TPM, LEV, PER, ZNS, BRV), while evidence is still being generated for newer ASMs such as CBD and FFA. Finally, we discuss how a variety of factors can affect mood, behaviour and cognition, and untangling the associations between the effects of the underlying syndrome and those of the ASMs can be challenging. In particular, there is enormous heterogeneity in cognitive, behavioural and developmental impairments that is complex and can change naturally over time; there is a lack of standardised instruments for evaluating these outcomes in developmental and epileptic encephalopathies, with a reliance on subjective evaluations by proxy (caregivers); and treatment regimes are complex involving multiple ASMs as well as other drugs.

Retention of brivaracetam in adults with drug-resistant epilepsy at a single tertiary care center

INTRODUCTION

Brivaracetam (BRV) is licensed as an adjunctive treatment for focal epilepsy. We describe our clinical experience with BRV at a large UK tertiary center.

METHODS

Adults initiated on BRV between July 2015 and July 2020 were followed up until they discontinued BRV or September 2021. Data on epilepsy syndrome, duration, seizure types, concomitant and previous antiseizure medication (ASM) use, BRV dosing, efficacy, and side effects were recorded. Efficacy was categorized as temporary (minimum three months) or ongoing (at last follow-up) seizure freedom, ≥50% seizure reduction, or other benefits (e.g., no convulsions or daytime seizures). Brivaracetam retention was estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

Two-hundred people were treated with BRV, of whom 81% had focal epilepsy. The mean (interquartile range [IQR]) follow-up time was 707 (688) days, and the dose range was 50-600 mg daily. The mean (IQR) of the previous number of used ASMs was 6.9 (6.0), and concomitant use was 2.2 (1.0). One-hundred and eighty-eight people (94%) had previously discontinued levetiracetam (LEV), mainly due to side effects. 13/200 (6.5%) were seizure free for a minimum of six months during treatment, and 46/200 (23%) had a ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency for six months or more. Retention rates were 83% at six months, 71% at 12 months, and 57% at 36 months. Brivaracetam was mostly discontinued due to side effects (38/75, 51%) or lack of efficacy (28/75, 37%). Concomitant use of carbamazepine significantly increased the hazard ratio of discontinuing BRV due to side effects (p = 0.006). The most commonly reported side effects were low mood (20.5%), fatigue (18%) and aggressive behavior (8.5%). These side effects were less prevalent than when the same individuals took LEV (low mood, 59%; aggressive behavior, 43%). Intellectual disability was a risk factor for behavioral side effects (p = 0.004), and a pre-existing mood disorder significantly increased the likelihood of further episodes of low mood (p = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

Brivaracetam was effective at a broad range of doses in managing drug-resistant epilepsy across various phenotypes, but less effective than LEV in those who switched due to poor tolerability on LEV. There were no new tolerability issues, but 77% of the individuals experiencing side effects on BRV also experienced similar side effects on LEV.

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Significance

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

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

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

Intravenous Brivaracetam in the Management of Acute Seizures in the Hospital Setting: A Scoping Review

Background

Clinical considerations for drug treatment of acute seizures involve variables such as safety, tolerability, drug-drug interactions, dosage, route of administration, and alterations in pharmacokinetics because of critical illness. Therapy options that are easily and quickly administered without dilution, well tolerated, and effective are needed for the treatment of acute seizures. The objective of this review is to focus on the clinical considerations relating to the use of intravenous brivaracetam (IV BRV) for the treatment of acute seizures in the hospital, focusing on critically ill patients.

Methods

This was a scoping literature review of PubMed from inception to April 13, 2021, and search of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) 2021 Annual Meeting website for English language publications/conference abstracts reporting the results of IV BRV use in hospitalized patients, particularly in the critical care setting. Outcomes of interest relating to the clinical pharmacology, safety, tolerability, efficacy, and effectiveness of IV BRV were reviewed and are discussed.

Results

Twelve studies were included for analysis. One study showed that plasma concentrations of IV BRV 15 min after the first dose were similar between patients receiving IV BRV as bolus or infusion. IV BRV was generally well tolerated in patients with acute seizures in the hospital setting, with a low incidence of individual TEAEs classified as behavioral disorders. IV BRV demonstrated efficacy and effectiveness and had a rapid onset, with clinical and electrophysiological improvement in seizures observed within minutes. Although outside of the approved label, findings from several studies suggest that IV BRV reduces seizures and is generally well tolerated in patients with status epilepticus.

Conclusions

IV BRV shows effectiveness, and is generally well tolerated in the management of acute seizures in hospitalized patients where rapid administration is needed, representing a clinically relevant antiseizure medication for potential use in the critical care setting.

Brivaracetam add-on therapy for drug-resistant epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders. It is estimated that up to 30% of individuals with epilepsy continue to have epileptic seizures despite treatment with an antiepileptic drug. These patients are classified as drug-resistant and require treatment with a combination of multiple antiepileptic drugs. Brivaracetam is a third-generation antiepileptic drug that is a high-affinity ligand for synaptic vesicle protein 2A. In this review we investigated the use of brivaracetam as add-on therapy for epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of brivaracetam when used as add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update we searched the following databases on 7 September 2021: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web); MEDLINE (Ovid) 1946 to 3 September 2021. CRS Web includes randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for parallel-group RCTs that recruited people of any age with drug-resistant epilepsy. We accepted studies with any level of blinding (double-blind, single-blind, or unblinded).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

In accordance with standard Cochrane methodological procedures, two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion before evaluating trial quality and extracting relevant data. The primary outcome to be assessed was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. Secondary outcomes were: seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal for any reason, treatment withdrawal due to adverse events, the proportion of participants who experienced any adverse events, and drug interactions. We used an intention-to-treat population for all primary analyses, and presented results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any new studies for this update, therefore the results and conclusions of the review are unchanged. The previous review included six studies involving a total of 2411 participants. Only one study included participants with both focal and generalised onset seizures; the other five trials included participants with focal onset seizures only. Study participants were aged 16 to 80 years. Treatment periods ranged from 7 to 16 weeks. We judged two studies to have low risk of bias and four to have unclear risk of bias. Details on the method used for allocation concealment and how blinding was maintained were insufficient in one study each. One study did not report all outcomes prespecified in the trial protocol, and there were discrepancies in reporting in a further study. Participants receiving brivaracetam add-on were more likely to experience a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency than those receiving placebo (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.14; 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants receiving brivaracetam were more likely to attain seizure freedom; however, the evidence is of low certainty (RR 5.89, 95% CI 2.30 to 15.13; 6 studies). The incidence of treatment withdrawal for any reason was slightly greater for participants receiving brivaracetam compared to those receiving placebo (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.74; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence). The risk of participants experiencing one or more adverse events did not differ significantly following treatment with brivaracetam compared to placebo (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.17; 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). However, participants receiving brivaracetam did appear to be more likely to withdraw from treatment due to adverse events compared with those receiving placebo (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.33; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When used as add-on therapy for individuals with drug-resistant epilepsy, brivaracetam may be effective in reducing seizure frequency and may aid patients in achieving seizure freedom. However, add-on brivaracetam is probably associated with a greater proportion of treatment withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo. It is important to note that only one of the eligible studies included participants with generalised epilepsy. None of the included studies involved participants under the age of 16, and all studies were of short duration. Consequently, the findings of this review are mainly applicable to adult patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Future research should focus on investigating the tolerability and efficacy of brivaracetam during longer-term follow-up, as well as assess the efficacy and tolerability of add-on brivaracetam in managing other types of seizures and in other age groups.

Pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of intravenous brivaracetam in pediatric patients with epilepsy: An open-label trial

Objective

To evaluate the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) as 15‐min intravenous (IV) infusion and bolus (≤2‐min injection).

Methods

EP0065 (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03405714) was a Phase 2, multicenter, open‐label trial in patients ≥1 month to <16 years of age with epilepsy. Patients received up to 5 mg/kg/day BRV (not exceeding 200 mg/day). Enrollment was sequential by descending age, depending on safety review. Outcomes included BRV plasma concentrations before and after IV administration, treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and discontinuations due to TEAEs.

Results

Fifty patients were enrolled, received BRV, and completed the trial. Twenty‐six patients (52.0%) received 15‐min infusions and 24 (48.0%) received bolus injections. Most patients (80.0%) received one IV dose. In the 15‐min infusion group, geometric mean (GeoMean) BRV concentrations 15 (±2) min (n = 21) and 3 h (±15 min) (n = 21) post dose were 1903.0 ng/mL (geometric coefficient of variation [GeoCV]: 60.7%) and 1130.3 ng/mL (58.8%), respectively. In the bolus group, GeoMean BRV concentrations 15 (±2) min (n = 19) and 3 h (±15 min) (n = 21) post dose were 1704.8 ng/mL (GeoCV: 74.5%) and 1383.9 ng/mL (85.0%), respectively. Overall, 14 patients (28.0%) had TEAEs (15‐min infusion: 8 [30.8%]; bolus: 6 [25.0%]), most commonly (≥5% of patients) somnolence (3 [6.0%]). Ten patients (20.0%) had drug‐related TEAEs (15‐min infusion: 6 [23.1%]; bolus: 4 [16.7%]). No patients discontinued due to TEAEs, and no deaths occurred.

Significance

IV BRV (up to 200 mg/day) was well tolerated in patients ≥1 month to <16 years of age, regardless of whether BRV was administered as 15‐min infusion or bolus. No unexpected safety or pharmacokinetic differences were observed between patients receiving 15‐min infusions or bolus, and plasma concentrations were in the expected range. Safety results were consistent with the known safety profile of oral BRV, with no new safety concerns identified.

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.

Suicidality Risk of Newer Antiseizure Medications: A Meta-analysis

Importance

Most antiseizure medications (ASMs) carry a US Food and Drug Administration-mandated class label warning of increased suicidality risk, based on a meta-analysis comparing suicidality between individuals treated with medications vs placebo in randomized clinical trials done before 2008. ASMs approved since then carry this warning although they were not similarly studied.

Objective

To review all placebo-controlled phase 2 and 3 studies of 10 ASMs approved since 2008 to evaluate the risk of suicidality of these drugs compared with placebo.

Data Sources

Primary publications and secondary safety analyses in PubMed of all phase 2 and 3 randomized placebo-controlled epilepsy trials of ASMs approved since 2008, using keywords epilepsy, antiepileptic drugs, seizures, suicidality, suicidal ideation, and the names of individual drugs.

Study Selection

All phase 2 and 3 randomized clinical trials of adjunctive treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy and their secondary safety analyses.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Articles were reviewed for frequency of suicidality (ideation, attempts, and completed suicides). Mode of suicidality ascertainment included treatment-emergent adverse event reports, Standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities queries for events in prespecified categories including suicidal ideation and behavior, prospective collection of suicidality data as a prespecified safety outcome using the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale, and retrospective evaluation by blinded review using the Columbia-Classification Algorithm of Suicide Assessment. A meta-analysis compared risk for drugs vs placebo of each outcome for all drugs overall and by individual drugs and trials.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Suicidality (total and by ideation), attempts, and completed suicides.

Results

Excluding studies that did not evaluate suicidality (everolimus and fenfluramine) or did not evaluate it prospectively (lacosamide, ezogabine, and clobazam), 5 drugs were analyzed: eslicarbazepine, perampanel, brivaracetam, cannabidiol, and cenobamate. Suicidality was evaluated in 17 randomized clinical trials of these drugs, involving 5996 patients, of whom 4000 patients were treated with ASMs and 1996 with placebo. There was no evidence of increased risk of suicidal ideation (drugs vs placebo overall risk ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.35-1.60) or attempt (risk ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.30-1.87) overall or for any individual drug. Suicidal ideation occurred in 12 of 4000 patients treated with ASMs (0.30%) vs 7 of 1996 patients treated with placebo (0.35%) (P = .74). Three patients treated with ASMs and no patients treated with placebo attempted suicide (P = .22). There were no completed suicides.

Conclusions and Relevance

There is no current evidence that the 5 ASMs evaluated in this study increase suicidality in epilepsy and merit a suicidality class warning.

An update on brivaracetam for the treatment of pediatric partial epilepsy

Introduction: Brivaracetam (BRV) is an antiseizure medication (ASM), which has been approved as an adjunctive treatment in adults and pediatric patients aged four years and older with focal onset seizures. It is a second-generation levetiracetam (LEV) derivative, sharing the same mechanism of action, binding synaptic vesicles 2A (SV2A). BRV shows higher binding affinity and selectivity and higher brain permeability than LEV.Areas covered: This article reviews randomized controlled trials, retrospective and prospective studies published up to December 2020, searched in electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Clinical Trial Database and provide an overview of efficacy, safety and tolerability of BRV in pediatric patients with partial epilepsy. Furthermore, the authors provide their expert opinion on the drug and give their future perspectives.Expert opinion: The analysis of the literature data has demonstrated the safety and efficacy of BRV in pediatric patients, with more evidence in children aged 4 to 16 years with an onset of focal seizures. However, a positive response was also achieved in patients affected by some encephalopathic epilepsies. Comparative efficacy studies between BRV and other ASMs, in addition to well-designed RCTs that include larger pediatric populations are needed to better define the role and potentiality of this ASM.

Behavioral adverse events with brivaracetam, levetiracetam, perampanel, and topiramate: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To understand the currently available post-marketing real-world evidence of the incidences of and discontinuations due to the BAEs of irritability, anger, and aggression in people with epilepsy (PWE) treated with the anti-seizure medications (ASMs) brivaracetam (BRV), levetiracetam (LEV), perampanel (PER), and topiramate (TPM), as well as behavioral adverse events (BAEs) in PWE switching from LEV to BRV.

METHODS

A systematic review of published literature using the Cochrane Library, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Embase was performed to identify retrospective and prospective observational studies reporting the incidence of irritability, anger, or aggression with BRV, LEV, PER, or TPM in PWE. The incidences of these BAEs and the rates of discontinuation due to each were categorized by ASM, and where possible, weighted means were calculated but not statistically assessed. Behavioral and psychiatric adverse events in PWE switching from LEV to BRV were summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

A total of 1500 records were identified in the searches. Of these, 44 published articles reporting 42 studies met the study criteria and were included in the data synthesis, 7 studies were identified in the clinical trial database, and 5 studies included PWE switching from LEV to BRV. Studies included a variety of methods, study populations, and definitions of BAEs. While a wide range of results was reported across studies, weighted mean incidences were 5.6% for BRV, 9.9% for LEV, 12.3% for PER, and 3.1% for TPM for irritability; 3.3%* for BRV, 2.5% for LEV, 2.0% for PER, and 0.2%* for TPM for anger; and 2.5% for BRV, 2.6% for LEV, 4.4% for PER, and 0.5%* for TPM for aggression. Weighted mean discontinuation rates were 0.8%* for BRV, 3.4% for LEV, 3.0% for PER, and 2.2% for TPM for irritability and 0.8%* for BRV, 2.4% for LEV, 9.2% for PER, and 1.2%* for TPM for aggression. There were no discontinuations for anger. Switching from LEV to BRV led to improvement in BAEs in 33.3% to 83.0% of patients (weighted mean, 66.6%). *Denotes only 1 study.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review characterizes the incidences of irritability, anger, and aggression with BRV, LEV, PER, and TPM, and it provides robust real-world evidence demonstrating that switching from LEV to BRV may improve BAEs. While additional data remain valuable due to differences in methodology (which make comparisons difficult), these results improve understanding of the real-world incidences of discontinuations due to these BAEs in clinical practice and can aid in discussions and treatment decision-making with PWE.

Long-term safety, efficacy, and quality of life during adjunctive brivaracetam treatment in patients with uncontrolled epilepsy: An open-label follow-up trial

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this long-term follow-up (LTFU) trial was to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV). The secondary objective was to evaluate the maintenance of efficacy of BRV (including quality of life) over time.

METHODS

This open-label, multicenter, flexible-dose trial (N01379 [NCT01339559]) was conducted in adults (≥16 years) with focal or generalized-onset seizures, who had participated in a placebo (PBO)-controlled trial of adjunctive BRV (N01258: NCT01405508 or N01358: NCT01261325).

RESULTS

Seven hundred and sixty-six patients received BRV in this LTFU trial (753 had focal seizures and 13 had generalized-onset seizures). Kaplan-Meier-estimated retention was 71.9% at 12 months, and 53.7% at 36 months. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 643 (83.9%) patients, most commonly headache (104 [13.6%] patients) and dizziness (100 [13.1%] patients). Two hundred and fifty-seven (33.6%) patients had drug-related TEAEs, most commonly somnolence (49 [6.4%] patients) and dizziness (41 [5.4%] patients). Permanent discontinuation of BRV due to TEAEs occurred in 91 (11.9%) patients. Patients with focal seizures had a median percentage reduction in focal seizure frequency of 52.0% and 51.7% were 50% responders (sustained over time); 26.0% were seizurefree for 6 months, and 17.9% were seizurefree for 12 months. 42.4% of patients at 12 months and 46.8% at 24 months had clinically meaningful improvements in Patient Weighted Quality of Life in Epilepsy Questionnaire 31 total score.

CONCLUSIONS

In this select group of patients who entered the LTFU trial, BRV was generally safe and well tolerated. Results indicate the long-term efficacy of BRV in patients with focal seizures.

Adjunctive brivaracetam - A prospective audit of outcomes from an epilepsy clinic

OBJECTIVE

Brivaracetam (BRV), is licensed in Europe as adjunctive treatment, and in the United States of America as adjunctive and monotherapy for focal seizures with or without secondary generalization in adults, adolescents, and children ≥4 years. As BRV becomes available globally, this prospective audit was undertaken to gain an understanding of how best to use the anti-seizure medication (ASM) in the everyday clinical setting.

METHODS

Brivaracetam was started by patients ≥16 years with difficult-to-control epilepsy at Glasgow epilepsy clinics following a 12-week baseline on stable ASM doses. Target dosing was 200 mg/day. Review occurred every 12-16 weeks until 1 of 4 end-points occurred: seizure freedom for ≥6 months on a given BRV dose; ≥50% (responder) or <50% (marginal benefit) seizure reduction over 6 months compared with baseline on the highest tolerated BRV dose; withdrawal of BRV due to lack of efficacy, adverse effects, or both.

RESULTS

An end-point has been reached by 108 patients (38 men, 70 women; median age 45 years), 88 with focal-onset seizures and 20 with genetic generalized epilepsies (GGEs). Of these, 71 (65.7%) have benefitted from BRV, including 23 (21.3%) who have been seizure free for ≥6 months on a median BRV dose of 100 mg/day (range 25-200 mg/day). A further 18 (16.7%) were classified as responders and 30 (27.8%) showed marginal benefit. Brivaracetam benefitted 16 (80.0%) patients with GGEs, 5 becoming seizure free. Generalized tonic-clonic seizures, absences, and myoclonic seizures were completely controlled in 4 (25%) patients with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy. Brivaracetam monotherapy was established in 12 patients, 3 of whom had GGEs. Levetiracetam (LEV) had previously been prescribed in 53 patients who had discontinued the ASM due to lack of efficacy, side effects, or both. Adjunctive BRV benefitted 34 (64.2%) of these patients. Brivaracetam was withdrawn in 37 (34.3%) patients, (23 side effects, 4 lack of efficacy, 10 both). Sedation was the commonest side effect leading to BRV withdrawal (n = 14; 13.0%). Psychiatric side effects resulted in BRV discontinuation in 9 (8.3%) patients.

SIGNIFICANCE

Brivaracetam has efficacy for a range of seizure types and syndromes in a wide range of doses. The ASM can produce positive outcomes in patients who have failed LEV. Post-marketing studies remain a useful tool to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of novel ASMs in everyday clinical practice.

Potential role of brivaracetam in pediatric epilepsy

Brivaracetam (BRV) is a new antiseizure medication (ASM) that is currently approved for adjunctive treatment in patients with focal onset seizures. Similarly to levetiracetam (LEV), BRV works by binding SV2A vesicles with a high affinity and a linear pharmacokinetic profile. Retrospective studies and randomized clinical trials have already proven the efficacy of BRV, even in patients who failed treatment with LEV. Most studies about the efficacy and tolerability conducted so far were performed in adult cohorts, whereas few studies have been performed in children; however, BRV was proven to be a useful ASM for pediatric focal epilepsies, with fewer studies and conflicting results among patients with generalized epilepsies and epileptic syndromes. Retention rates were high in the cohorts analyzed, and no serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in the majority of patients, with somnolence, drowsiness, irritability, aggression, and decreased appetite being the most frequently reported side effects. Although there are few original papers published on the subject so far, the analysis of the literature data demonstrated the efficacy and safety of BRV in pediatric patients, with more evidence for children aged 4-16 years with an onset of focal seizures. However, a positive response was also achieved in patients affected by encephalopathic epilepsies (eg, Jeavons' epilepsy, Dravet syndrome, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, and juvenile myoclonic epilepsy), and ongoing studies are now testing BRV in order to widen its application to other forms of epilepsy and to test its effectiveness when used in monotherapy. This review aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the literature surrounding the efficacy and tolerability of BRV for pediatric patients.

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of brivaracetam as adjunctive therapy in patients with focal seizures, generalized onset seizures, or Unverricht-Lundborg disease: An open-label, long-term follow-up trial

This long-term open-label extension (OLE) trial was conducted to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) at individualized doses in patients with epilepsy and focal (partial-onset) or generalized onset seizures, or Unverricht-Lundborg disease (ULD). A secondary objective was to evaluate efficacy of BRV in the subgroups of patients with focal or generalized onset seizures. Patients with epilepsy were eligible to enroll in this OLE (N01125; NCT00175916) and were analyzed if they had completed a previous double-blind BRV trial (N01114 [NCT00175929], N01252 [NCT00490035], N01254 [NCT00504881], N01187 [NCT00357669], and N01236 [NCT00368251]), and were expected to obtain a reasonable benefit from long-term BRV treatment. Patients entered the OLE at the BRV dose recommended at the end of the previous trial, with dose adjustments of BRV and concomitant antiseizure medications permitted. Safety variables included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Efficacy variables in patients with focal seizures were percent reduction in focal seizure frequency, 50 % responder rates, and 6- and 12-month seizure-freedom. Eight hundred and fifty-three patients (729 [85.5 %] with focal seizures, 30 [3.5 %] with generalized onset seizures, and 94 [11.0 %] with ULD) were enrolled and included in the Safety Set. Overall, 619 (72.6 %) patients discontinued the trial, mainly due to lack of efficacy (354 [41.5 %]), adverse events (100 [11.7 %]), and patient choice (98 [11.5 %]). During the OLE, 588 (68.9 %) patients received BRV for ≥12 months, 403 (47.2 %) for ≥36 months, and 223 (26.1 %) for ≥96 months. The most common modal dose of BRV was 150 mg/day (415 [48.7 %] patients). In the ULD subgroup, the most common modal BRV dose was 100 mg/day (44/94 [46.8 %] patients), and 37/94 (39.4 %) patients had ≥96 months of BRV exposure. Overall, 720/853 (84.4 %) patients reported TEAEs, 451 (52.9 %) had a drug-related TEAE, and 95 (11.1 %) discontinued BRV due to a TEAE. In the ULD subgroup, 87/94 (92.6 %) patients reported TEAEs, 60 (63.8 %) had a drug-related TEAE, and 16 (17.0 %) discontinued due to a TEAE. In patients with focal seizures, the median reduction in focal seizure frequency from Baseline was 43.1 % (n = 728), the 50 % responder rate was 43.6 % (n = 729), and 6- and 12-month seizure freedom rates were 22.2 % and 15.8 %, respectively (n = 595). Overall, BRV was well-tolerated as long-term adjunctive therapy in patients with focal seizures, generalized onset seizures, or Unverricht-Lundborg disease, with improvements in focal seizure frequency maintained over time.

Effect of Brivaracetam on Efficacy and Tolerability in Patients With Brain Tumor-Related Epilepsy: A Retrospective Multicenter Study

Background: Epilepsy is a common symptom of brain tumors and is often pharmacoresistent. Among new antiseizure medications (ASMs) Brivaracetam (BRV) has been approved as adjunctive treatment for focal seizures and it was tested in non-oncological patient populations. This is the first study that retrospectively explored efficacy and tolerability of BRV as add-on therapy in brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE) patients. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the medical records of 33 BTRE patients from six Italian epilepsy centers; charts included tumor history, diagnosis of BTRE, BRV added as first or second add-on for uncontrolled seizures and/or adverse events (AEs) of the previous ASMs, at least 1-month follow-up, seizure frequency, and AEs assessment. Results: Thirty-three patients (19 males, mean age: 57.6 years; 14 females, mean age: 42.4 years): 11 low grade gliomas, five high grade gliomas, six meningiomas, 10 glioblastomas, one primary cerebral lymphoma. Fourteen patients had focal aware seizures, nine focal unaware, seven focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures, three patients presented more than one seizure type: focal unaware with focal to bilateral tonic clonic seizures (two patients) and focal aware and unaware seizures (one patient). Mean seizure frequency in the month preceding BRV introduction: 7.0; at last follow-up: 2.0 (p = 0.001). Seven patients (21.2%) reported AEs (anxiety, agitation, fatigue, vertigo) and three of them (9.0%) required drug withdrawal due to psychiatric adverse events (PAEs). Three other patients withdrew BRV: one for scarce compliance (3.0%), two for uncontrolled seizures (6.0%). Conclusion: Our results showed that BRV could be a new therapeutic option effective in reducing seizures in BTRE patients, taking into account the incidence of PAEs in this particular population. Future and larger prospective studies are needed.