Replacement of Valproic Acid with New Anti-Seizure Medications in Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsy

Background: Little is known regarding the non-inferiority of new anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in terms of replacing valproic acid (VPA) in patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE). We hypothesized that replacement of VPA with new ASMs would offer non-inferior or better control of seizure frequency. The purpose of this study was to compare epileptic seizure frequency between the subset of patients with IGE who were on VPA and the subset of patients with IGE who replaced VPA with new ASMs. Methods: Patients with IGE who were on or had been on VPA between January 2016 and March 2022 were divided into a group that replaced VPA with new ASMs (VPA-replace group) and a group that remained on VPA (VPA-continue group). We then compared the groups in terms of seizure frequency and myoclonus. Results: Of the 606 patients on VPA between January 2016 and March 2022, 156 patients with IGE were enrolled to this study (VPA-replace group, n = 68; VPA-continue group, n = 88). The VPA-replace group included significantly more females than the VPA-continue group (p < 0.001). The VPA-replace group also showed significantly higher seizure frequency before replacement (p < 0.001), but not after replacement (p = 0.074). Patients on monotherapy displayed improved seizure frequency with new ASMs (p < 0.001). Among the new ASMs, perampanel (PER) significantly improved seizure frequency (p = 0.002). Forty-two patients in the VPA-replace group who had myoclonus achieved significant improvements (p < 0.001). Among these, patients on PER monotherapy (p < 0.001) or PER + lamotrigine (0.016) showed significantly improved myoclonus scale scores. Conclusions: This study shows the non-inferiority of new ASMs compared to VPA, with better seizure control using new ASMs in subsets of patients with IGE on monotherapy.

Perampanel in achieving status epilepticus cessation: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Status epilepticus (SE) is a neurological emergency necessitating rapid seizure control to prevent long-term consequences. Perampanel (PER) is a novel selective, noncompetitive alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic (AMPA) receptor antagonist that demonstrated efficacy and safety in lithium-pilocarpine models of SE; however, data in humans are limited. This systematic review was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of PER in patients with SE, RSE, and SRSE.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (accessed through PubMed), Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception until May 30, 2021 to identify all human studies on PER for the treatment of SE of any type and etiology. An additional search was performed on DANS Easy Archive, in which OpenGrey data were stored, from inception until January 10, 2022 and conference proceedings by the International League Against Epilepsy from 2011 onward. The GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the overall certainty of the body of evidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies (7 case reports, 9 case series, and 5 retrospective cohort studies) were included with a total of 369 cases of SE in 368 patients aged 11 months to 99 years, of which 56.2% were female. Seizures of the majority were refractory (n = 220), super refractory SE (n = 70), or either (n = 81) with prominent motor symptoms (n = 284) and are associated with a structural etiology (n = 218). The number of antiseizure medications and/or anesthetics used prior to PER ranged from 1 to 13. PER was administered in 324 cases and was initiated at a dose of 2-36 mg between 30 min to 59 days from SE onset. SE cessation ranged from 1 h to 4 weeks from PER initiation. A total of 119 cases (36.6%) were considered PER responders. According to the GRADE approach, there is very low certainty of evidence for all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The real-world data of PER as a possible therapeutic option in SE of any type are increasing. However, there is very low certainty of evidence for its use and this requires further clinical studies to establish the appropriate timing, dosing, and titration that are efficacious and safe for SE cessation.

Expanding the Treatment Landscape for Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome: Current and Future Strategies

Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS), a childhood-onset severe developmental and epileptic encephalopathy (DEE), is an entity that encompasses a heterogenous group of aetiologies, with no single genetic cause. It is characterised by multiple seizure types, an abnormal EEG with generalised slow spike and wave discharges and cognitive impairment, associated with high morbidity and profound effects on the quality of life of patients and their families. Drug-refractory seizures are a hallmark and treatment is further complicated by its multiple morbidities, which evolve over the patient's lifetime. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the current and future options for the treatment of seizures associated with LGS. Six treatments are specifically indicated as adjunct therapies for the treatment of seizures associated with LGS in the US: lamotrigine, clobazam, rufinamide, topiramate, felbamate and most recently cannabidiol. These therapies have demonstrated reductions in drop seizures in 15%-68% of patients across trials, with responder rates (≥ 50% reduction in drop seizures) of 37%-78%. Valproate is still the preferred first-line treatment, generally in combination with lamotrigine or clobazam. Other treatments frequently used off-label include the broad spectrum anti-epileptic drugs (AED) levetiracetam, zonisamide and perampanel, while recent evidence from observational studies has indicated that a newer AED, the levetiracetam analogue brivaracetam, may be effective and well tolerated in LGS patients. Other treatments in clinical development include fenfluramine in late phase III, perampanel, soticlestat-OV953/TAK-953, carisbamate and ganaxolone. Non-pharmacologic interventions include the ketogenic diet, vagus nerve stimulation and surgical interventions; these are also expanding, with the potential for less invasive techniques for corpus callosotomy that have promise for reducing complications. However, despite these advancements, patients continue to experience a significant burden. Because LGS is not a single entity, tailoring of treatment is needed as opposed to a 'one size fits all' approach. Further research is needed into the underlying aetiologies and pathophysiology of LGS, together with advancements in treatments that encompass the spectrum of seizures associated with this complex syndrome.

Efficacy, Retention and Tolerability of Everolimus in Patients with Tuberous Sclerosis Complex: A Survey-Based Study on Patients' Perspectives

BACKGROUND

The approval of everolimus (EVE) for the treatment of angiomyolipoma (2013), subependymal giant cell astrocytoma (2013) and drug-refractory epilepsy (2017) in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) represents the first disease-modifying treatment option available for this rare and complex genetic disorder.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to analyse the use, efficacy, tolerability and treatment retention of EVE in patients with TSC in Germany from the patient's perspective.

METHODS

A structured cross-age survey was conducted at 26 specialised TSC centres in Germany and by the German TSC patient advocacy group between February and July 2019, enrolling children, adolescents and adult patients with TSC.

RESULTS

Of 365 participants, 36.7% (n = 134) reported the current or past intake of EVE, including 31.5% (n = 115) who were taking EVE at study entry. The mean EVE dosage was 6.1 ± 2.9 mg/m² (median: 5.6 mg/m², range 2.0-15.1 mg/m²) in children and adolescents and 4 ± 2.1 mg/m² (median: 3.7 mg/m², range 0.8-10.1 mg/m²) in adult patients. An early diagnosis of TSC, the presence of angiomyolipoma, drug-refractory epilepsy, neuropsychiatric manifestations, subependymal giant cell astrocytoma, cardiac rhabdomyoma and overall multi-organ involvement were associated with the use of EVE as a disease-modifying treatment. The reported efficacy was 64.0% for angiomyolipoma (75% in adult patients), 66.2% for drug-refractory epilepsy, and 54.4% for subependymal giant cell astrocytoma. The overall retention rate for EVE was 85.8%. The retention rates after 12 months of EVE therapy were higher among adults (93.7%) than among children and adolescents (88.7%; 90.5% vs 77.4% after 24 months; 87.3% vs 77.4% after 36 months). Tolerability was acceptable, with 70.9% of patients overall reporting adverse events, including stomatitis (47.0%), acne-like rash (7.7%), increased susceptibility to common infections and lymphoedema (each 6.0%), which were the most frequently reported symptoms. With a total score of 41.7 compared with 36.8 among patients not taking EVE, patients currently being treated with EVE showed an increased Liverpool Adverse Event Profile. Noticeable deviations in the sub-items 'tiredness', 'skin problems' and 'mouth/gum problems', which are likely related to EVE-typical adverse effects, were more frequently reported among patients taking EVE.

CONCLUSIONS

From the patients' perspective, EVE is an effective and relatively well-tolerated disease-modifying treatment option for children, adolescents and adults with TSC, associated with a high long-term retention rate that can be individually considered for each patient. Everolimus therapy should ideally be supervised by a centre experienced in the use of mechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitors, and adverse effects should be monitored on a regular basis.

Cenobamate for the treatment of focal epilepsies

INTRODUCTION

Antiseizure drugs (ASDs) play a central and crucial role in the treatment of epilepsy patients because the majority require anticonvulsant treatment for an extended period of time. Due to the fact that 30% of patients are refractory to medical treatment, new therapeutic options are necessary. Cenobamate is the latest approved antiepileptic drug in focal epilepsy, and its mode of action is thought to be mediated by blocking voltage-gated sodium channels and interaction with the GABAergic system.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews animal studies, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and the phase 1 to 3 trials and open-label extension data on cenobamate.

EXPERT OPINION

Cenobamate has the potential to perform as an important ASD because trial data are indicative of remarkable responder and seizure freedom rates so far not seen with other ASDs. Cenobamate demonstrated significant efficacy at a dosage between 100 and 400 mg per day. The side-effect profile of this drug is comparable to other ASDs and is mainly CNS related; in particular, somnolence, dizziness, headache, diplopia, and nystagmus. However, slow titration is mandatory to decrease the risk of drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) that was observed in several patients with fast uptitration schemes.

Therapeutic Options for Patients with Refractory Status Epilepticus in Palliative Settings or with a Limitation of Life-Sustaining Therapies: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Refractory status epilepticus (RSE) represents a serious medical condition requiring early and targeted therapy. Given the increasing number of elderly or multimorbid patients with a limitation of life-sustaining therapy (LOT) or within a palliative care setting (PCS), guidelines-oriented therapy escalation options for RSE have to be omitted frequently.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review sought to summarize the evidence for fourth-line antiseizure drugs (ASDs) and other minimally or non-invasive therapeutic options beyond guideline recommendations in patients with RSE to elaborate on possible treatment options for patients undergoing LOT or in a PCS.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, focusing on fourth-line ASDs or other minimally or non-invasive therapeutic options was performed in February and June 2020 using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. The search terminology was constructed using the name of the specific ASD or therapy option and the term 'status epilepticus' with the use of Boolean operators, e.g. "(brivaracetam) AND (status epilepticus)". The respective Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Emtree terms were used, if available.

RESULTS

There is currently no level 1, grade A evidence for the use of ASDs in RSE. The best evidence was found for the use of lacosamide and topiramate (level 3, grade C), followed by brivaracetam, perampanel (each level 4, grade D) and stiripentol, oxcarbazepine and zonisamide (each level 5, grade D). Regarding non-medicinal options, there is little evidence for the use of the ketogenic diet (level 4, grade D) and magnesium sulfate (level 5, grade D) in RSE. The broad use of immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive treatment options in the absence of a presumed autoimmune etiology cannot be recommended; however, if an autoimmune etiology is assumed, steroid pulse, intravenous immunoglobulins and plasma exchange/plasmapheresis should be considered (level 4, grade D). Even if several studies suggested that the use of neurosteroids (level 5, grade D) is beneficial in RSE, the current data situation indicates that there is formal evidence against it.

CONCLUSIONS

RSE in patients undergoing LOT or in a PCS represents a challenge for modern clinicians and epileptologists. The evidence for the use of ASDs in RSE beyond that in current guidelines is low, but several effective and well-tolerated options are available that should be considered in this patient population. More so than in any other population, advance care planning, advance directives, and medical ethical aspects have to be considered carefully before and during therapy.

Preliminary evidence about irritability in patients with epilepsy treated by perampanel as first add-on therapy compared to levetiracetam and valproic acid

Aims

Irritability has been described as a frequent adverse event in patients affected by epilepsy and treated with perampanel (PER), levetiracetam (LEV), and less frequently with valproic acid (VPA). Since the questionnaire for irritability (I‐EPI) is a validated instrument to measure this psychiatric manifestation in patients affected by epilepsy, in this study we aimed at investigating the effect of PER as first add‐on therapy on I‐EPI. Moreover, we compared the effectiveness and I‐EPI scores obtained at 12‐month follow‐up visits in patients treated by PER, LEV, or VPA in order to measure irritability as a consequence of these treatments.

Methods

We collected data from 17 patients treated by PER, 16 patients treated by LEV, and 16 patients under VPA treatment followed for 12 months.

Results

We did not document significant changes of I‐EPI questionnaire between baseline and follow‐up in the PER group. As concerning the comparison of I‐EPI among PER, LEV, and VPA groups, we documented lower global scores in PER than both LEV (P < 0.05) and VPA (P < 0.05) groups. Moreover, patients under PER treatment showed lower scores than LEV and VPA (P < 0.05) in I‐EPI items measuring the gentle personality, anxiety of having epileptic seizures in front of others, and irritability in thinking that they can have an epileptic seizure.

Conclusions

This retrospective study described a stable and possibly lower degree of irritability in patients starting PER than LEV and VPA treatments, although we documented the comparable effectiveness of PER, LEV, and VPA as first add‐on treatments in patients affected by uncontrolled epileptic seizures. However, the small sample of patients included in this study and the absence of I‐EPI scores obtained at baseline visits in LEV and VPA groups require further investigations to confirm this preliminary evidence.

Novel drugs and early polypharmacotherapy in status epilepticus

PURPOSE

Rescue medications for status epilepticus (SE) have a relatively high rate of failure. The purpose of this review is to summarize the evidence for the efficacy of novel drugs and early polypharmacotherapy for SE.

METHOD

Literature review.

RESULTS

New drugs and treatment strategies aim to target the pathophysiology of SE in order to improve seizure control and outcomes. Changes at the synapse level during SE include a progressive decrease in synaptic GABA_A receptors and increase in synaptic NMDA receptors. These changes tend to promote self-sustaining seizures. Current SE guidelines recommend a rapid stepwise treatment using benzodiazepines in monotherapy as the first-line treatment, targeting GABA_A synaptic receptors. Novel treatment approaches target GABA_A synaptic and extrasynaptic receptors with allopregnanolone, and NMDA receptors with ketamine. Novel rescue treatments used for SE include topiramate, brivaracetam, and perampanel, which are already marketed in epilepsy. Some available drugs not marketed for use in epilepsy have been used in the treatment of SE, and other agents are being studied for this purpose. Early polytherapy, most frequently combining a benzodiazepine with a second-line drug or an NMDA receptor antagonist, might potentially increase seizure control with relatively minor increase in side effects. Although many preclinical studies support novel drugs and early polytherapy in SE, human studies are scarce and inconclusive. Currently, evidence is lacking to recommend specific combinations of these new agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel drugs and strategies target the underlying pathophysiology of SE with the intent to improve seizure control and outcomes.

Efficacy, Retention, and Tolerability of Brivaracetam in Patients With Epileptic Encephalopathies: A Multicenter Cohort Study From Germany

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in a severely drug refractory cohort of patients with epileptic encephalopathies (EE).

Method: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study recruiting all patients treated with EE who began treatment with BRV in an enrolling epilepsy center between 2016 and 2017.

Results: Forty-four patients (27 male [61%], mean age 29 years, range 6 to 62) were treated with BRV. The retention rate was 65% at 3 months, 52% at 6 months and 41% at 12 months. A mean retention time of 5 months resulted in a cumulative exposure to BRV of 310 months. Three patients were seizure free during the baseline. At 3 months, 20 (45%, 20/44 as per intention-to-treat analysis considering all patients that started BRV including three who were seizure free during baseline) were either seizure free (n = 4; 9%, three of them already seizure-free at baseline) or reported at least 25% (n = 4; 9%) or 50% (n = 12; 27%) reduction in seizures. An increase in seizure frequency was reported in two (5%) patients, while there was no change in the seizure frequency of the other patients. A 50% long-term responder rate was apparent in 19 patients (43%), with two (5%) free from seizures for more than six months and in nine patients (20%, with one [2 %] free from seizures) for more than 12 months. Treatment-emergent adverse events were predominantly of psychobehavioural nature and were observed in 16%.

Significance: In this retrospective analysis the rate of patients with a 50% seizure reduction under BRV proofed to be similar to those seen in regulatory trials for focal epilepsies. BRV appears to be safe and relatively well tolerated in EE and might be considered in patients with psychobehavioral adverse events while on levetiracetam.

Efficacy and tolerability of perampanel and levetiracetam as first add-on therapy in patients with epilepsy: A retrospective single center study

Perampanel (PER) is a third generation antiepileptic drug (AED), recently approved as add-on therapy in both focal and generalized seizures. Levetiracetam (LEV) is a second generation AED, widely used in patients with epilepsy because of its favorable safety and efficacy profiles. Perampanel and LEV treatments have been associated with the occurrence of similar adverse events (AEs) (sleepiness, irritability, depression, anxiety, aggressiveness). The aim of the present retrospective single center study was to verify the efficacy and tolerability of PER and LEV used as first add-on therapy in patients with epilepsy affected by secondarily generalized seizures. We collected data from 15 patients treated with PER and 26 patients treated with LEV and followed at our site with follow-up visits at 3, 6, and 12months. This retrospective study documented the comparable efficacy of PER and LEV as first add-on treatments in patients affected by uncontrolled secondarily generalized seizures. However, more patients withdrawn LEV because of AEs compared with PER at the 3- and 12-month follow-up visits. The better tolerability of PER observed in this study could be related to the low therapeutic dose of PER prescribed when it is used as first adjunctive treatment for better controlling secondarily generalized seizures.

Eslicarbazepine acetate in epilepsies with focal and secondary generalised seizures: systematic review of current evidence

INTRODUCTION

Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is a third-generation antiepileptic drug (AED) approved for adjunctive treatment in adults, children, and adolescents with focal-onset seizures. Recently ESL was approved for initial monotherapy in adults. The intention of this article is to review current evidence for ESL and to summarise its pharmacological profile in comparison to other AEDs of the dibenzazepine group. Areas covered: We performed a systematic literature search in electronic databases (MEDLINE database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Excerpta Medica dataBASE) using a combined search strategy including the following keywords: eslicarbazepine, epilepsy and seizure. The search was performed from 2000 until December 2017. Using a standardised assessment form, information on the study design, methodological framework, data sources and efficacy and adverse events attributed to ESL were extracted from each publication and systematically reported. Expert commentary: ESL is an effective, safe and well tolerated third-generation AED for the treatment of focal epilepsies. During therapy, especially serum sodium levels and possible interactions with other substances have to be monitored. As of yet, long-term experience is still needed to make severe late-occurring adverse events unlikely and to obtain data regarding its use in pregnancy.

Antiepileptic Drugs and Liver Disease

Acute, symptomatic seizures or epilepsy may complicate the course of hepatic disease. Choosing the most appropriate antiepileptic drug in this setting represents a difficult challenge, as most medications are metabolized by the liver. This article focuses on the acute and chronic treatment of seizures in patients with advanced liver disease and reviews the hepatotoxic potential of specific antiepileptic drugs. Newer antiepileptic drugs without, or with minimal, hepatic metabolism, such as levetiracetam, lacosamide, topiramate, gabapentin, and pregabalin should be used as first-line therapy. Medications undergoing extensive hepatic metabolism, such as valproic acid, phenytoin, and felbamate should be used as drugs of last resort. In special circumstances, as in patients affected by acute intermittent porphyria, exposure to most antiepileptic drugs could precipitate attacks. In this clinical scenario, bromides, levetiracetam, gabapentin, and vigabatrin constitute safe choices. For the treatment of status epilepticus, levetiracetam and lacosamide, available in intravenous preparations, are good second-line therapies after benzodiazepines fail to control seizures. Hepatotoxicity is also a rare and unexpected side effect of some antiepileptic drugs. Drugs such as valproic acid, phenytoin, and felbamate, have a well-recognized association with liver toxicity. Other antiepileptic drugs, including phenobarbital, benzodiazepines, ethosuximide, and the newer generations of antiepileptic drugs, have only rarely been linked to hepatotoxicity. Thus physicians should be mindful of the pharmacokinetic profile and the hepatotoxic potential of the different antiepileptic drugs available to treat patients affected by liver disease.

The Pharmacology and Toxicology of Third-Generation Anticonvulsant Drugs

Epilepsy is a neurologic disorder affecting approximately 50 million people worldwide, or about 0.7% of the population [1]. Thus, the use of anticonvulsant drugs in the treatment of epilepsy is common and widespread. There are three generations of anticonvulsant drugs, categorized by the year in which they were developed and released. The aim of this review is to discuss the pharmacokinetics, drug-drug interactions, and adverse events of the third generation of anticonvulsant drugs. Where available, overdose data will be included. The pharmacokinetic properties of third-generation anticonvulsant drugs include relatively fewer drug-drug interactions, as well as several unique and life-threatening adverse events. Overdose data are limited, so thorough review of adverse events and knowledge of drug mechanism will guide expectant management of future overdose cases. Reporting of these cases as they occur will be necessary to further clarify toxicity of these drugs.

Transition from intravenous to enteral ketamine for treatment of nonconvulsive status epilepticus

Background

Nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) is a diagnosis that is often challenging and one that may progress to refractory NCSE. Ketamine is a noncompetitive N-methyl-d-aspartate antagonist that increasingly has been used to treat refractory status epilepticus. Current Neurocritical Care Society guidelines recommend intravenous (IV) ketamine infusion as an alternative treatment for refractory status epilepticus in adults. On the other hand, enteral ketamine use in NCSE has been reported in only 6 cases (1 adult and 5 pediatric) in the literature to date.

Case presentation

A 33-year-old woman with a history of poorly controlled epilepsy presented with generalized tonic-clonic seizures, followed by recurrent focal seizures that evolved into NCSE. This immediately recurred within 24 h of a prior episode of NCSE that was treated with IV ketamine. Considering her previous response, she was started again on an IV ketamine infusion, which successfully terminated NCSE. This time, enteral ketamine was gradually introduced while weaning off the IV formulation. Treatment with enteral ketamine was continued for 6 months and then tapered off. There was no recurrence of NCSE or seizures and no adverse events noted during the course of treatment.

Conclusion

This case supports the use of enteral ketamine as a potential adjunct to IV ketamine in the treatment of NCSE, especially in cases without coma. Introduction of enteral ketamine may reduce seizure recurrence, duration of stay in ICU, and morbidity associated with intubation.

Perampanel in 12 patients with Unverricht-Lundborg disease

OBJECTIVE

Perampanel (PER) was used in 12 patients with Unverricht-Lundborg disease (ULD) to evaluate its efficacy against myoclonus and seizures.

METHODS

We treated 11 patients with EPM1 mutations (6 F, 5 M, aged 13-62 years) and a 43-year-old man with de novo KCNC1 mutation. PER was introduced by 2 mg steps at 2-4 week intervals until 6 mg/day, with a possible dose reduction or dose increase.

RESULTS

Ten patients had a clear clinical response of myoclonus, and five were able to reduce concomitant therapy. Improvement was noted sometimes as soon as with 2 mg/day. Epileptic seizures stopped on PER in the six patients who still had experienced generalized tonic-clonic or myoclonic seizures (100%). Some abatement of efficacy on myoclonus was seen in two patients who still retained some benefit. Weight gain was reported in six patients (50%). Psychological and behavioral side-effects were observed in six patients (50%) and led to withdrawal of PER in three cases and dose reduction in three, with abatement of the problems.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study provides evidence that for ULD patients, PER may show marked efficacy even in severe cases, particularly against myoclonus, but also against seizures. PER should thus be tried in ULD patients whose seizures are not satisfactorily controlled. Its use is limited because of psychological and behavioral side effects, with higher doses of approximately 6 mg/day or greater likely risk factors.

The efficacy of lacosamide as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy in focal epilepsy and its use in status epilepticus: clinical trial evidence and experience

Lacosamide (LCM) is approved for anticonvulsive treatment in focal epilepsy and exhibits its function through the slow inactivation of voltage-gated sodium channels (VGSCs). LCM shows comparable efficacy with other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) licensed in the last decade: in three randomized placebo-controlled trials, significant median seizure reduction rates of 35.2% for 200 mg/day, 36.4-39% for 400 mg/day and 37.8-40% for 600 mg/day were reported. Likewise, 50% responder rates were 38.3-41.1% for 400 mg/day and 38.1-41.2% for 600 mg/day. Similar rates were reported in post-marketing studies. The main adverse events (AEs) are dizziness, abnormal vision, diplopia and ataxia. Overall, LCM is well tolerated and has no clinically-relevant drug-drug interactions. Due to the drug's intravenous availability, its use in status epilepticus (SE) is increasing, and the available data are promising.

Brivaracetam in the treatment of focal and idiopathic generalized epilepsies and of status epilepticus

Brivaracetam is the latest approved antiepileptic drug in focal epilepsy and exhibits high affinity as SV2A-ligand. More than two thousand patients have received brivaracetam within randomized placebo-controlled trials. Significant median seizure reduction rates of 30.5% to 53.1% for 50 mg/d, 32.5% to 37.2% for 100 mg/d and 35.6% for 200 mg/d were reported. Likewise, 50% responder rates were 32.7% to 55.8% for 50 mg/d, 36% to 38.9% for 100 mg/d and 37.8% for 200 mg/d. Overall, brivaracetam is well tolerated. The main adverse events are fatigue, dizziness, and somnolence. Immediate switch from levetiracetam to brivaracetam at a conversion ratio between 10:1 to 15:1 is feasible, and might alleviate the behavioral side effects associated with levetiracetam. Brivaracetam has the potential to perform as an important, possibly broad-spectrum AED, initially in patients with drug-refractory epilepsies. Its intravenous formulation may be a new and desirable alternative for status epilepticus, but there is so far no experience in these patients.

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

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