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

A multicenter cohort study on the efficacy, retention, and tolerability of cenobamate in patients with developmental and epileptic encephalopathies

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to evaluate retention and treatment characteristics of cenobamate (CNB) in patients with developmental and epileptic encephalopathies (DEEs) in clinical practice.

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective cohort study recruited all patients with DEEs who started CNB treatment between October 2020 and April 2023 at participating epilepsy centers.

RESULTS

A total of 41 patients (mean age = 28.3 ± 13.1 years, median = 26 years, range = 4-73 years; 24 male [58.5%]) were treated with CNB. Of these, 33 had Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, seven had tuberous sclerosis complex, and one had Dravet syndrome. The median number of antiseizure medications (ASMs) at enrollment was three, and patients had a median of eight failed ASMs in the past. The retention rate for CNB was 94.9% at 3 months, 82.9% at 6 months, and 72.4% at 12 months of follow-up. Cumulative exposure to CNB was 477 months (39.2 years). Efficacy (50% responder rate) at 3 months was 39% including 7.3% seizure-free patients. Long-term, the 50% responder rate at 12 months was 34.5% (seizure-free [10.3%]). There was no difference in response at 3 months regarding sex, age (adult vs. children), previous and concomitant number of ASMs, or first target dose of CNB. Treatment-emergent adverse events were predominantly sedation and dizziness and were observed in 58.5% of patients. Children and adolescents showed comparable efficacy, retention, and tolerability compared to adults.

SIGNIFICANCE

The findings from this open-label, retrospective study suggest that CNB may be effective in some patients with DEEs. Its overall use in DEEs seems to be safe and well tolerated. We observed similar response, retention, and adverse event profiles in children and adults.

Effectiveness During 12-Month Adjunctive Brivaracetam Treatment in Patients with Focal-Onset Seizures in a Real-Life Setting: A Prospective, Observational Study in Europe

INTRODUCTION

Efficacy/tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV) for focal-onset seizures (FOS) in patients aged ≥ 16 years was established in randomized controlled trials. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of adjunctive BRV in patients (≥ 16 years) with FOS with/without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures in daily clinical practice.

METHODS

A 12-month, prospective, real-world, noninterventional study in nine European countries (EP0077/NCT02687711). BRV was prescribed per clinical practice and European Summary of Product Characteristics. Eligible patients had never received BRV before inclusion. Treating physicians made the decision to prescribe BRV, independently of study participation. Primary effectiveness outcome: BRV retention rate at 12 months; secondary effectiveness outcomes: 50% responder rate, seizure freedom.

RESULTS

A total of 544 patients received ≥ 1 BRV dose (mean age: 43.6 years; 52.8% female; mean time since diagnosis: 22.7 years). Patients had a mean of 7.3 lifetime antiseizure medications (ASMs) and median of 3.7 FOS/28 days during 3-month retrospective baseline. Median total ASM drug load (including BRV) was 3.0 at BRV initiation (n = 539) and 3.3 at study end (n = 314). At 12 months, 57.7% of 541 patients remained on BRV, 60.4% of 230 were responders (≥ 50% seizure reduction since baseline), and 13.8% of 269 were seizure-free since BRV initiation. Historical levetiracetam use appeared not to impact retention rate (56.6% of 320 and 59.3% of 221 patients with and without historical levetiracetam use, respectively). 36.0% of 544 patients had drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), mostly (≥ 5% of patients) drug ineffective (11.4%) and seizure (6.3%). The three most common drug-related TEAEs leading to permanent BRV discontinuation (of 544 patients) were drug ineffective (10.1%), seizure (5.1%), and behavior disorder (3.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive BRV was effective in clinical practice in patients with predominantly difficult-to-treat FOS, as shown by BRV retention rate of 57.7% at 12 months, which is in line with real-world retention rates for other new-generation ASMs.

Post-marketing Experience with Cenobamate in the Treatment of Focal Epilepsies: A Multicentre Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

In randomised controlled trials, adjunctive cenobamate (CNB) has been shown to reduce seizure frequency in patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Studies conducted in real-world settings provide valuable complementary data to further characterise the drug's profile.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy, retention and tolerability of adjunctive cenobamate (CNB), and to identify factors that might predict these outcomes in the clinical treatment of focal epilepsies.

METHODS

This multicentre, retrospective cohort study included all patients who began CNB treatment between October 2020 and April 2023 at seven participating epilepsy centres. Baseline and follow-up data were collected from patients' medical records, covering clinical characteristics and outcome data such as seizure frequency, dosing of CNB, physician-assessed Clinical Global Impression of Change, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), CNB retention and reasons for discontinuation.

RESULTS

A total of 234 patients [mean age 40.7 ± 14 years, median 40 years, range 11-82 years; five adolescents under 18 years; 99 (42.3%) males] were analysed. The mean epilepsy duration at study entry was 23.2 ± 14.5 years (median 21 years, range 0.75-63 years), with the average age of epilepsy onset being 17.5 ± 13.0 years (median 17 years, range 0.1-71 years). The patients were taking a mean of 2.6 ± 0.8 (median 3) anti-seizure medications (ASMs) before starting CNB, and had failed a mean of 6 ± 3.3 (median 6) of further ASMs in the past. CNB exposure ranged from 5 to 1162 days, amounting to a total exposure time of 264.7 years. The retention rate was 92.6% at 3 months, 87.2% at 6 months and 77.8% at 12 months. At 3 months, 52.6% achieved a 50% seizure reduction, with 14.5% reporting seizure freedom; by 12 months, 47.7% maintained a 50% response rate and 11.9% were seizure-free. No significant differences in responder rates were observed based on sex, aetiology, seizure localisation, number of ASMs or target dose. The mean maximum CNB dose was 236.7 ± 97.4 mg (median 200 mg, range 12.5-450 mg), with 28 patients (12.0%) titrated up to 400 mg or above. During CNB treatment, 43.6% of patients were able to discontinue, and a further 24.4% were able to reduce the dose of a concomitant ASM. During CNB treatment, 144 patients (61.5%) experienced TEAEs. The most common TEAEs were sedation (n = 84, 35.9%), dizziness (n = 58, 24.8%) and ataxia (n = 23, 9.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

CNB showed a relatively high and clinically useful 50% responder rate of 47.7% and an overall retention of 77.8% at 1 year. We were unable to identify specific predictors for response and retention, indicating that CNB may be beneficial for patients with a history of multiple failed ASMs, a high number of concomitant ASMs and any localisation or aetiology of focal epilepsy.

First clinical post-approval, observational study to assess clinical safety and effectiveness of brivaracetam sustained-release formulation in real-life settings of India: BEAM study

PURPOSE

Brivaracetam (BRV) sustained-release (SR) tablets have recently been approved to treat focal seizures in India. SR formulations enhance patient adherence and quality of life (QoL). We assessed safety and effectiveness of BRV-SR for epilepsy management in Indian real-life settings.

METHODS

A post-approval observational study involving 1989 patients receiving BRV-SR from 181 centres were analysed. Primary endpoints are efficacy variables derived from seizure-related changes, and secondary endpoints include responder rate (≥50% reduction in focal-onset seizures [FoS]/focal-to-bilateral tonic-clonic seizures [FBTCS] frequency), usage pattern data, clinician's global impression on efficacy index (CGI-EI) and safety variables.

RESULTS

Patients' mean age was 42.33±12.33 years, and 1441 (72.44%) were men. Psychiatric comorbidities included depression (21.97%), sleep disturbance (15.54%), and anxiety (9.60%). The predominant seizure types were FoS (71.44%) and FBTCS (28.56%). BRV-SR 100 mg once-daily was most prescribed dose (57.37%) at baseline and follow-up visits (51.94%). Median seizure frequency decreased from 2 at baseline to 1 at follow-up visit. At follow-up, 72.1% patients were responders, and 63.75% were seizure-free. BRV-SR showed "marked" to "moderate" improvement in 92.99% of patients according to CGI-EI. Subgroup-analysis revealed a positive correlation between BRV-SR use in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, psychiatric co-morbidities, and behavioural adverse events (AEs) with past anti-seizure medications. AEs were rare, with none reported in 97.39% patients during study period.

CONCLUSION

The BEAM study findings provide first real-world evidence on effectiveness and safety of BRV-SR in Indian real-life settings. Furthermore, BRV-SR is a feasible option for focal epilepsy management with good retention rates and improved QoL.

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.

A real-world comparison among third-generation antiseizure medications: Results from the COMPARE study

OBJECTIVE

There are few comparative data on the third-generation antiseizure medications (ASMs). We aimed to assess and compare the effectiveness of brivaracetam (BRV), eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), lacosamide (LCM), and perampanel (PER) in people with epilepsy (PWE). Efficacy and tolerability were compared as secondary objectives.

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective study collected data from 22 Italian neurology/epilepsy centers. All adult PWE who started add-on treatment with one of the studied ASMs between January 2018 and October 2021 were included. Retention rate was established as effectiveness measure and described using Kaplan-Meier curves and the best fitting survival model. The responder status and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) were used to evaluate efficacy and safety, respectively. The odds of AEs and drug efficacy were estimated by two multilevel logistic models.

RESULTS

A total of 960 patients (52.92% females, median age = 43 years) met the inclusion criteria. They mainly suffered from structural epilepsy (52.29%) with monthly (46.2%) focal seizures (69.58%). Compared with LCM, all the studied ASMs had a higher dropout risk, statistically significant in the BRV levetiracetam (LEV)-naïve (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17-3.29) and PER groups (HR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.06-2.55). Women were at higher risk of discontinuing ESL (HR = 5.33, 95% CI = 1.71-16.61), as well as PER-treated patients with unknown epilepsy etiology versus those with structural etiology (HR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.05-2.88). BRV with prior LEV therapy showed lower odds of efficacy (odds ratio [OR] = .08, 95% CI = .01-.48) versus LCM, whereas a higher efficacy was observed in women treated with BRV and LEV-naïve (OR = 10.32, 95% CI = 1.55-68.78) versus men. PER (OR = 6.93, 95% CI = 3.32-14.44) and BRV in LEV-naïve patients (OR = 6.80, 95% CI = 2.64-17.52) had a higher chance of AEs than LCM.

SIGNIFICANCE

Comparative evidence from real-world studies may help clinicians to tailor treatments according to patients' demographic and clinical characteristics.

Efficacy and tolerability of perampanel: a Chinese real-world observational study in epilepsy

Purpose

To investigate whether there exists a statistically significant distinction between the effectiveness and tolerance of perampanel (PER) and the number of antiseizure medications (ASMs) that were tried prior to administering PER.

Method

A prospective, observational study was performed at West China Hospital of Sichuan University. The study included patients diagnosed with epilepsy who were prescribed PER and were monitored for a minimum of 6 months. The efficacy of PER was evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12-month intervals by examining the retention rate and the 50% response rate. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 25 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, New York).

Results

A total of 1,025 patients were identified, of which 836 were included in the analysis. Seven hundred and eighty-nine patients (94.4%) were followed up for a year. The median age of the patients was 29.32 ± 14.06 years, with 45.81% of the patients being male and 17.0% being adolescents. The average duration of epilepsy was 11.22 ± 8.93 years. Overall, PER was discontinued in 49.5% of patients, with the most common reasons being inadequate therapeutic effect and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). At the 6-month follow-up, the retention rate was 54.2% (454/836), and 39.6% of patients had a 50% response. At the 12-month follow-up, the retention rate was 49.4% (340/789), and 44.5% of patients had a 50% response. Patients who received PER as monotherapy had the highest retention rates (P = 0.034) and 50% response rates (P < 0.001) at any follow-up point. TEAEs were reported in 32.0% of patients, and these led to discontinuation in 15.4% of patients. The most common TEAEs were dizziness and somnolence. There was no significant difference between subgroups (P = 0.57), but there was a significant difference between the dosage of PER and TEAEs (P < 0.001).

Main findings

The study concludes that PER is effective in treating both focal and generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Patients who had fewer previous exposures to ASMs exhibited higher response rates to PER. TEAEs related to PER dosage were more prevalent during the first 3 months of treatment and tended to improve with continued use, ultimately demonstrating favorable long-term tolerability.

Real-world analysis of retention on cenobamate in patients with epilepsy in the United States

BACKGROUND

This retrospective, observational study used US claims data to assess retention rates on cenobamate compared with four branded antiseizure medications (ASMs) in patients with epilepsy.

METHODS

Adults (≥18 years) with prevalent epilepsy (ICD-10 code G40.xx) and ≥ 1 prescription for cenobamate or any of the newer branded ASMs (brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, or perampanel) between May 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021 were identified from the HealthVerity Marketplace database. At least 360 days of continuous enrollment was required before and after the index date (Day 1 of initiating cenobamate or branded ASM). Patients were followed until cessation of cenobamate or branded ASM or the end of data collection using Kaplan-Meier methods. Retention was compared between cenobamate and the branded ASMs (both as a group and individually) using Chi-square tests.

RESULTS

In total, 4109 patients were included (195 cenobamate; 3914 branded ASMs). A higher proportion of patients in the cenobamate group compared with the branded ASMs group had concurrent focal and generalized epilepsy (65.6% vs 40.0%) and were on ≥ 3 concomitant ASMs (48.2% vs 12.8%) at the index date. Median time to discontinuation (i.e., the time that half the patients discontinued) was not quite reached after 12 months in the cenobamate group (50.3% of patients remained on cenobamate) and was 7.7 months in the branded ASMs group. Retention was significantly higher with cenobamate vs the branded ASMs group (p = 0.04545) and vs the individual ASMs lacosamide (p = 0.03044) and perampanel (p = 0.01558). Twelve-month retention rates (95% confidence intervals) were 50.3% (43.1%-57.0%) for cenobamate, 40.5% (38.9%-42.0%) for branded ASMs overall, 42.3% (38.6%-46.0%) for brivaracetam, 44.1% (39.2%-49.0%) for eslicarbazepine, 39.9% (38.0%-41.8%) for lacosamide, and 36.8% (31.9%-41.8%) for perampanel.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world analysis, retention was significantly higher with cenobamate vs a pooled group of four branded ASMs despite a greater frequency of patients in the cenobamate group having characteristics of more difficult-to-treat 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.

The efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam for the treatment of adult epilepsy: An Australian multi-center retrospective real-world observational cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Assess the efficacy and tolerability of add-on therapy brivaracetam (BRV) in adult patients with epilepsy in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This multi-center retrospective observational cohort study examined all adult patients who commenced on BRV at 11 Australian epilepsy centers between 2017 and 2020. Primary outcomes were seizure response (≥50% reduction in frequency) and seizure freedom 12 months post BRV commencement, and tolerability. We report three approaches to missing data (complete case analysis, CCA; last observation carried forward, LOCF; and intention to treat, ITT). Secondary outcomes included the durability of early BRV response and continuous seizure freedom from BRV initiation. Subgroup analysis examined patients with focal and generalized epilepsy and patients with refractory (≥4 prior ASMs) and highly refractory (≥7 prior ASMs) epilepsy. Outcomes were also assessed at 'personalized' seizure outcome time points based on baseline seizure frequency.

RESULTS

Baseline and follow-up data were available for 228 patients. The mean age was 41.5 years (IQR 30, 50). Most had focal epilepsy (188/228, 82.5%). Median number of previous ASMs was 4 (2, 7), and concomitant ASMs 2 (2, 3). Twelve-month responder rate was: 46.3% using CCA (95% CI 34.0, 58.9); 39.5% using LOCF (33.1, 46.1); and 15.4% using ITT (10.9, 20.7). Twelve-month seizure freedom was: 23.9% using CCA (14.3, 35.9); 24.6% using LOCF (19.1, 30.7); and 7.9% using ITT (4.7, 12.1). The most frequent adverse effects were sedation or cognitive slowing (33/228, 14.5%), irritability or aggression (16/228, 7.0%), and low mood (14/228, 6.1%). Outcomes were similar using continuous outcome definitions and 'personalized' outcome assessment time points. Early responses were highly durable, with 3-month response maintained at all subsequent time points at 83%, and seizure freedom maintained at 85%. Outcomes were similar in focal (n = 187) and generalizsed (n = 25) subgroups. Outcomes were similar in refractory patients (n = 129), but lower in the highly refractory group (n = 62), however improvement with BRV was still observed with 12-month seizure freedom of 8.3% using CCA (1.0, 27), 6.5% using LOCF (1.8, 15.7); and 3.2% using ITT (0.4, 11.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Meaningful real-world responder and seizure freedom rates can be still observed in a refractory epilepsy population. Brivaracetam response can occur early and appears to be maintained with minimal later relapse. The results should be interpreted with caution given the retrospective nature of the study and the quantities of missing data at later time points.

Adverse Event Profiles of Antiseizure Medications and the Impact of Coadministration on Drug Tolerability in Adults with Epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Antiseizure medication (ASM) as monotherapy or in combination is the treatment of choice for most patients with epilepsy. Therefore, knowledge about the typical adverse events (AEs) for ASMs and other coadministered drugs (CDs) is essential for practitioners and patients. Due to frequent polypharmacy, it is often difficult to clinically assess the AE profiles of ASMs and differentiate the influence of CDs.

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective analysis aimed to determine typical AE profiles for ASMs and assess the impact of CDs on AEs in clinical practice.

METHODS

The Liverpool AE Profile (LAEP) and its domains were used to identify the AE profiles of ASMs based on data from a large German multicenter study (Epi2020). Following established classifications, drugs were grouped according to their mode of action (ASMs) or clinical indication (CDs). Bivariate correlation, multivariate ordinal regression (MORA), and artificial neural network (ANNA) analyses were performed. Bivariate correlation with Fisher's z-transformation was used to compare the correlation strength of LAEP with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory for Epilepsy (NDDI-E) to avoid LAEP bias in the context of antidepressant therapy.

RESULTS

Data from 486 patients were analyzed. The AE profiles of ASM categories and single ASMs matched those reported in the literature. Synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A (SV2A) and voltage-gated sodium channel (VGSC) modulators had favorable AE profiles, while brivaracetam was superior to levetiracetam regarding psychobehavioral AEs. MORA revealed that, in addition to seizure frequency, α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) modulators and antidepressants were the only independent predictors of high LAEP values. After Fisher's z-transformation, correlations were significantly lower between LAEP and antidepressants than between LAEP and HADS or NDDI-E. Therefore, a bias in the results toward over interpreting the impact of antidepressants on LAEP was presumed. In the ANNA, perampanel, zonisamide, topiramate, and valproic acid were important nodes in the network, while VGSC and SV2A modulators had low relevance for predicting relevant AEs. Similarly, cardiovascular agents, analgesics, and antipsychotics were important CDs in the ANNA model.

CONCLUSION

ASMs have characteristic AE profiles that are highly reproducible and must be considered in therapeutic decision-making. Therapy using perampanel as an AMPA modulator should be considered cautiously due to its relatively high AE profile. Drugs acting via VGSCs and SV2A receptors are significantly better tolerated than other ASM categories or substances (e.g., topiramate, zonisamide, and valproate). Switching to brivaracetam is advisable in patients with psychobehavioral AEs who take levetiracetam. Because CDs frequently pharmacokinetically interact with ASMs, the cumulative AE profile must be considered.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS00022024, U1111-1252-5331.

BRIVEST: A 'real-world' observational, single-centre study investigating the efficacy, safety and tolerability of Brivaracetam

OBJECTIVE

Via measures of efficacy, tolerability, and safety, this open-label, single-center study assessed the overall effectiveness of Brivaracetam (BRV) for the treatment of epilepsy in the context of 'real-world' clinical practice.

METHODS

Unselected consecutive patients were recruited and stratified into 3 cohorts with either fully prospective, fully retrospective or mixed data collection, dependent on whether their BRV prescriptions were historical, current, or pending. Prospective data were obtained at baseline, 3 and 6 months, and at 6-month intervals thereafter, from patient interviews and seizure diaries, and retrospective data from medical records. Efficacy variables were derived from seizure-related changes, and tolerability and safety variables from reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), BRV withdrawal, and changes to questionnaire scores. Additionally, we investigated treatment outcomes for those with previous levetiracetam (LEV) use, a history of psychiatric comorbidity, a learning disability, and of older age.

RESULTS

One hundred and nine patients (58.7% female, mean age 42 years, range: 18 to 72) were included, 59 with prospective follow-up for a minimum of 6 (47 patients, excluding those who withdrew) and a maximum of 24 months (2 patients). Of the full cohort, 87.2% had drug-resistant epilepsy. Retention: At the study end, the median treatment duration was 384 days (range: 6 to 1514 days), and BRV retention was 68.8%. Kaplan-Meier survival functions predicted retention rates of 74.0% and 70.0% at 6 and 12 months respectively.

EFFICACY

At the last follow-up, there was a ≥ 50% responder rate of 30.8%, with 12.1% seizure-free. Seizure frequency categories improved in 31.4% of patients, remained the same in 44.2%, and worsened in 24.4%. Monthly tonic-clonic seizure frequency had significantly decreased, and of those reporting these seizures, 58.3% showed reductions and 25.0% showed complete tonic-clonic seizure freedom.

TOLERABILITY

91.7% of patients reported at least 1 TEAE, with fatigue (30.3%), irritability (29.4%), and depression/low mood (28.4%) as the most common. Only 58.4% of all TEAEs were persistent. Brivaracetam discontinuation due to side effects occurred in 27.5% of the cohort. Depression and anxiety scores remained stable over time, and quality-of-life scores improved. Subgroups: Measures of BRV efficacy and tolerability did not differ according to previous LEV exposure. Tolerability profiles of those with learning disabilities, histories of psychiatric comorbidities, and older age did not greatly differ from the rest of the cohort. Of note, specific history of depression predicted the reporting of suicidal ideation.

CONCLUSION

The BRIVEST study provides real-world evidence of the effectiveness of BRV, suggesting that neither drug-resistant epilepsy nor previous LEV failure should preclude its use. Furthermore, BRV appears to be well-tolerated, even among those from vulnerable patient populations.

Comparative economic outcomes in patients with focal seizures initiating eslicarbazepine acetate versus brivaracetam in the long-term care setting in the USA

Aim: To compare all-cause and epilepsy-specific pharmacy and total costs associated with initiation of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) or brivaracetam (BRV) among patients with focal seizures in long-term care (LTC) in the US. Methods: This retrospective analysis used data from IQVIA's New Data Warehouse. Results: 298 patients initiated ESL and 282 patients initiated BRV. Initiation of ESL versus BRV was associated with 33.3% lower all-cause pharmacy costs, 34.4% lower epilepsy-specific pharmacy costs, 21.3% lower all-cause total costs and 30.9% lower epilepsy-specific total costs (all p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Among patients with focal seizures in LTC in the US, initiation of ESL versus BRV was associated with significant reductions in all-cause and epilepsy-specific pharmacy and total costs compared with initiation of BRV.

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.

[Epilepsy in the elderly]

The incidence rate of epilepsy has importantly increased during the last decades due to the rising expectation of life. Special clinical aspects have to be considered for the correct diagnosis and differential diagnosis of epileptic seizures in the elderly: On one hand, the etiology of epilepsy in the elderly is different from epilepsies of younger people with a higher rate of symptomatic epilepsies compared to younger people. On the other hand, seizures are more often clinically inconclusive as they frequently appear without motor symptoms and therefore require an accurate diagnostic differentiation from other attacks of unconsciousness. The most accurate diagnostic tool for the correct diagnosis of such seizures is the registration of the seizures by longtime-video-EEG-monitoring (LTVEM). If LTVEM cannot be performed also home-video-registration could be useful. Medical treatment of epilepsies in the elderly has to be done with special consideration of comorbidity and metabolic changes in this age group.

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).

Trends in antiseizure medication prescription patterns among all adults, women, and older adults with epilepsy: A German longitudinal analysis from 2008 to 2020

INTRODUCTION

The prescription patterns of antiseizure medication (ASM) are subject to new scientific evidence and sociodemographic and practical aspects. This study analyzed trends in ASM prescription patterns among all adults with epilepsy, with special consideration for women of childbearing potential (WOCBP) and older adult (≥65 years old) patients.

METHODS

Data from four questionnaire-based cohort studies, conducted in 2008, 2013, 2016, and 2020, were analyzed for ASM prescription frequencies and common mono- and dual therapy regimens. Statistical comparisons were performed with the Chi-square test and one-way analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Overall, the individual prescription patterns among 1,642 adult patients with epilepsy were analyzed. A significant increase in the prescription frequency of third-generation ASMs, from 59.3% to 84.2% (p = 0.004), was accompanied by a decrease in the frequency of first- and second-generation ASMs (5.4% to 2.1% and 34.9% to 12.6%, respectively). This trend was accompanied by a significant decrease in the use of enzyme-inducing ASMs, from 23.9% to 4.6% (p = 0.004). Among frequently prescribed ASMs, prescriptions of carbamazepine (18.6% to 3.1%, p = 0.004) and valproate (15.4% to 8.7%, p = 0.004) decreased, whereas prescriptions of levetiracetam (18.0% up to 32.4%, p = 0.004) increased significantly. The prescription frequency of lamotrigine remained largely constant at approximately 20% (p = 0.859). Among WOCBP, the prescription frequencies of carbamazepine (11.4% to 2.0%, p = 0.004) and valproate (16.1% to 6.1%, p = 0.004) decreased significantly. Levetiracetam monotherapy prescriptions increased significantly (6.6% to 30.4%, p = 0.004) for WOCBP, whereas lamotrigine prescriptions remained consistent (37.7% to 44.9%, p = 0.911). Among older adult patients, a significant decrease in carbamazepine prescriptions (30.1% to 7.8%, p = 0.025) was the only relevant change in ASM regimens between 2008 and 2020. In patients with genetic generalized epilepsies, levetiracetam was frequently used as an off-label monotherapy (25.0% to 35.3%).

CONCLUSION

These results show a clear trend toward the use of newer and less interacting third-generation ASMs, with lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and lacosamide representing the current ASMs of choice, displacing valproate and carbamazepine over the last decade. In WOCBP, prescription patterns shifted to minimize teratogenic effects, whereas, among older adults, the decrease in carbamazepine use may reflect the avoidance of hyponatremia risks and attempts to reduce the interaction potential with other drugs and ASMs. Levetiracetam is frequently used off-label as a monotherapy in patients with genetic generalized epilepsy.

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

Background

The management of epilepsy in older adults has become part of daily practice because of an aging population. Older patients with epilepsy represent a distinct and more vulnerable clinical group as compared with younger patients, and they are generally under-represented in randomized placebo-controlled trials. Real-world studies can therefore be a useful complement to characterize the drug’s profile. Brivaracetam is a rationally developed compound characterized by high-affinity binding to synaptic vesicle protein 2A and approved as adjunctive therapy for focal seizures in adults with epilepsy.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the 12-month effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam in older patients (≥65 years of age) with epilepsy treated in a real-world setting.

Methods

The BRIVAFIRST (BRIVAracetam add-on First Italian netwoRk STudy) was a 12-month retrospective multicenter study including adult patients prescribed adjunctive brivaracetam. Effectiveness outcomes included the rates of seizure response (≥50% reduction in baseline seizure frequency), seizure freedom, and treatment discontinuation. Safety and tolerability outcomes included the rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events and the incidence of adverse events. Data were compared for patients aged ≥65 years of age (‘older’) vs those aged <65 years (‘younger’).

Results

There were 1029 patients with focal epilepsy included in the study, of whom 111 (10.8%) were aged ≥65 years. The median daily dose of brivaracetam at 3 months was 100 [interquartile range, 100–175] mg in the older group and 100 [100–200] mg in the younger group (p = 0.036); it was 150 [100–200] mg in both groups either at 6 months (p = 0.095) or 12 months (p = 0.140). At 12 months, 49 (44.1%) older and 334 (36.4%) younger patients had a reduction in their baseline seizure frequency by at least 50% (p = 0.110), and the seizure freedom rates were 35/111 (31.5%) and 134/918 (14.6%) in older and younger groups, respectively (p < 0.001). During the 1-year study period, 20 (18.0%) patients in the older group and 245 (26.7%) patients in the younger group discontinued brivaracetam (p = 0.048). Treatment withdrawal because of insufficient efficacy was less common in older than younger patients [older: n = 7 (6.3%), younger: n = 152 (16.6%); p = 0.005]. Adverse events were reported by 24.2% of older patients and 30.8% of younger patients (p = 0.185); the most common adverse events were somnolence, nervousness and/or agitation, vertigo, and fatigue in both study groups.

Conclusions

Adjunctive brivaracetam was efficacious, had good tolerability, and no new or unexpected safety signals emerged when used to treat older patients with uncontrolled focal seizures in clinical practice. Adjunctive brivaracetam can be a suitable therapeutic option in this special population.