RESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Anticonvulsivantes , Epilepsia , Pirrolidinonas , Humanos , Anticonvulsivantes/uso terapéutico , Anticonvulsivantes/efectos adversos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto , Femenino , Anciano , Epilepsia/tratamiento farmacológico , Pirrolidinonas/uso terapéutico , Pirrolidinonas/efectos adversos , Adulto Joven , Adolescente , Resultado del Tratamiento , Estudios Retrospectivos , Anciano de 80 o más Años , InternacionalidadRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in adults with epilepsy by specific comorbidities and epilepsy etiologies. METHODS: EXPERIENCE/EPD332 was a pooled analysis of individual patient records from several non-interventional studies of patients with epilepsy initiating BRV in clinical practice. Outcomes included ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in seizure frequency, seizure freedom (no seizures within prior 3 months), continuous seizure freedom (no seizures since baseline), BRV discontinuation, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Analyses were performed for all adult patients (≥ 16 years of age) and stratified by comorbidity and by etiology at baseline (patients with cognitive/learning disability [CLD], psychiatric comorbidity, post-stroke epilepsy, brain tumor-related epilepsy [BTRE], and traumatic brain injury-related epilepsy [TBIE]). RESULTS: At 12 months, ≥ 50% seizure reduction was achieved in 35.6% (n = 264), 38.7% (n = 310), 41.7% (n = 24), 34.1% (n = 41), and 50.0% (n = 28) of patients with CLD, psychiatric comorbidity, post-stroke epilepsy, BTRE, and TBIE, respectively; and continuous seizure freedom was achieved in 5.7% (n = 318), 13.7% (n = 424), 29.4% (n = 34), 11.4% (n = 44), and 13.8% (n = 29), respectively. During the study follow-up, in patients with CLD, psychiatric comorbidity, post-stroke epilepsy, BTRE, and TBIE, 37.1% (n = 403), 30.7% (n = 605), 33.3% (n = 51), 39.7% (n = 68), and 27.1% (n = 49) of patients discontinued BRV, respectively; and TEAEs since prior visit at 12 months were reported in 11.3% (n = 283), 10.0% (n = 410), 16.7% (n = 36), 12.5% (n = 48), and 3.0% (n = 33), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: BRV as prescribed in the real world is effective and well tolerated among patients with CLD, psychiatric comorbidity, post-stroke epilepsy, BTRE, and TBIE.
Asunto(s)
Anticonvulsivantes , Comorbilidad , Epilepsia , Pirrolidinonas , Humanos , Pirrolidinonas/efectos adversos , Pirrolidinonas/uso terapéutico , Masculino , Femenino , Anticonvulsivantes/efectos adversos , Anticonvulsivantes/uso terapéutico , Epilepsia/tratamiento farmacológico , Epilepsia/epidemiología , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Adulto Joven , Trastornos Mentales/epidemiología , Trastornos Mentales/tratamiento farmacológico , Trastornos Mentales/etiología , Resultado del Tratamiento , AdolescenteRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Pirrolidinonas , Adulto , Humanos , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Pirrolidinonas/efectos adversos , Levetiracetam , Australia , Bases de Datos FactualesRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of lacosamide (LCM) (up to 12 mg/kg/day or 600 mg/day) as adjunctive therapy in pediatric patients with epilepsy syndromes associated with generalized seizures. METHODS: Phase 2, multicenter, open-label exploratory trial (SP0966; NCT01969851; 2012-001446-18) of oral LCM for epilepsy syndromes associated with generalized seizures in pediatric patients ≥1 month to <18 years of age taking one to three concomitant antiseizure medications. The trial comprised a 6-week prospective baseline period, 6-week flexible titration period, and 12-week maintenance period. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients (mean age: 9.2 years; 56.4% male) took at least one dose of LCM and had at least one post-baseline efficacy-related assessment. The median treatment duration was 127.0 days. There were no clinically significant mean or median changes or worsening from baseline to end of the titration period in the count of generalized spike-wave discharges per interpretable hour on 24-h ambulatory electroencephalogram recordings, or from baseline to the maintenance period in mean and median days with any generalized or focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures per 28 days. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 49 patients (89.1%), and three patients (5.5%) discontinued due to TEAEs. The median change and median percentage change in days with any generalized or focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures per 28 days from baseline to the maintenance period were both 0. Trends toward improvement (decrease) were observed in median change and median percentage change in days with each individual seizure type (absence, myoclonic, clonic, tonic, tonic-clonic, atonic, and focal to bilateral tonic-clonic) per 28 days. SIGNIFICANCE: Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profile of LCM and were as expected for the pediatric population. There was no worsening of generalized seizures with LCM. Limitations include the inability to correlate spike and wave data with clinical outcomes, and the lack of similar studies against which the results can be compared.
Asunto(s)
Epilepsia Generalizada , Síndromes Epilépticos , Niño , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Anticonvulsivantes/efectos adversos , Método Doble Ciego , Quimioterapia Combinada , Epilepsia Generalizada/tratamiento farmacológico , Síndromes Epilépticos/tratamiento farmacológico , Lacosamida/efectos adversos , Estudios Prospectivos , Convulsiones/tratamiento farmacológico , Convulsiones/inducido químicamente , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To evaluate safety and tolerability of adjunctive lacosamide in children with focal seizures. METHODS: Patients were eligible for this open-label, fixed-titration trial (SP0847; NCT00938431) if aged 1 month-17 years with focal seizures taking 1-3 antiepileptic drugs. Findings from Cohort 1, aged 5-11 years, who received lacosamide ≤8 mg/kg/day, informed dosing for age-based cohorts 2-5, who then received ≤12 mg/kg/day (≤600 mg/day). Oral lacosamide was initiated at 2 mg/kg/day (1 mg/kg bid) and uptitrated by 2 mg/kg/day/week to the maximum cohort-defined dose (maximum trial duration: 13 weeks). Patients who did not achieve the maximum cohort-defined dose were discontinued. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients (aged 6 months-≤17 years) enrolled (≥1 month-<4 years: n = 15; ≥4-<12 years: n = 23; ≥12-≤17 years: n = 9). 24/47 (51.1%) patients completed the trial at the maximum cohort-defined dose and 40/47 (85.1%) continued lacosamide in the extension trial. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 42/47 (89.4%) patients. The most common TEAEs (≥10% of patients) were vomiting (21.3%), diarrhea (14.9%), somnolence (12.8%), irritability, dizziness, and pyrexia (10.6% each). Twenty (42.6%) patients discontinued due to TEAEs, most commonly vomiting (8.5%), gait disturbance, dizziness, and somnolence (6.4% each). Six (12.8%) patients reported serious TEAEs, most commonly status epilepticus (3/47; 6.4%). CONCLUSION: This fixed-titration trial supports the safety of adjunctive lacosamide in children (aged 6 months-≤17 years) with focal seizures. The TEAE profile was generally consistent with that observed in trials in adults, and no new safety concerns were identified.
Asunto(s)
Anticonvulsivantes/farmacología , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos , Epilepsias Parciales/tratamiento farmacológico , Lacosamida/farmacología , Adolescente , Anticonvulsivantes/administración & dosificación , Anticonvulsivantes/efectos adversos , Niño , Preescolar , Quimioterapia Combinada , Femenino , Humanos , Lactante , Lacosamida/administración & dosificación , Lacosamida/efectos adversos , MasculinoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive lacosamide in children and adolescents with uncontrolled focal (partial-onset) seizures. METHODS: In this double-blind trial (SP0969; NCT01921205), patients (age ≥4-<17 years) with uncontrolled focal seizures were randomized (1:1) to adjunctive lacosamide/placebo. After a 6-week titration, patients who reached the target dose range for their weight (<30 kg: 8-12 mg/kg/d oral solution; ≥30-<50 kg: 6-8 mg/kg/d oral solution; ≥50 kg: 300-400 mg/d tablets) entered a 10-week maintenance period. The primary outcome was change in focal seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline to maintenance. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-three patients were randomized; 306 (lacosamide 152 of 171 [88.9%]; placebo 154 of 172 [89.5%]) completed treatment (titration and maintenance). Adverse events (AEs) were the most common reasons for discontinuation during treatment (lacosamide 4.1%; placebo 5.8%). From baseline to maintenance, percent reduction in focal seizure frequency per 28 days for lacosamide (n = 170) vs placebo (n = 168) was 31.7% (p = 0.0003). During maintenance, median percent reduction in focal seizure frequency per 28 days was 51.7% for lacosamide and 21.7% for placebo. Fifty percent responder rates (≥50% reduction) were 52.9% and 33.3% (odds ratio 2.17, p = 0.0006). During treatment, treatment-emergent AEs were reported by 67.8% lacosamide-treated patients (placebo 58.1%), most commonly (≥10%) somnolence (14.0%, placebo 5.2%) and dizziness (10.5%, placebo 3.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive lacosamide was efficacious in reducing seizure frequency and generally well tolerated in patients (age ≥4-<17 years) with focal seizures. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01921205. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This trial provides Class I evidence that for children and adolescents with uncontrolled focal seizures, adjunctive lacosamide reduces seizure frequency.
Asunto(s)
Anticonvulsivantes/administración & dosificación , Lacosamida/administración & dosificación , Convulsiones/diagnóstico , Convulsiones/tratamiento farmacológico , Adolescente , Anticonvulsivantes/sangre , Niño , Preescolar , Método Doble Ciego , Quimioterapia Combinada , Femenino , Humanos , Lacosamida/sangre , Masculino , Estudios Prospectivos , Convulsiones/sangre , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: This trial evaluated the short-term safety and tolerability, steady-state pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of brivaracetam oral solution in children aged 1 month to < 16 years with epilepsy. METHODS: This was a phase IIa, open-label, single-arm, fixed three-step dose escalation trial of 3-weeks duration (N01263; NCT00422422). Patients were taking one to three concomitant antiepileptic drugs. Brivaracetam oral solution dosage, in two divided daily doses, was increased each week: approximately 0.8, 1.6, and 3.2 mg/kg/day for patients aged ≥ 8 years, and 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 mg/kg/day for patients aged < 8 years. RESULTS: Of the 100 patients enrolled, 90 (90.0%) completed the trial. The safety population comprised 99 patients. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) considered drug related by the investigator were reported by 32/99 (32.3%) patients, most commonly (≥ 5%) somnolence (7.1%) and decreased appetite (6.1%). TEAEs were reported by 66/99 (66.7%) patients, most commonly (≥ 5%) convulsion, irritability, pyrexia, somnolence, and decreased appetite. In patients with a history of focal seizures with or without secondary generalization and no primary generalized seizures aged 4 to < 16 years (n = 34), drug-related TEAEs and TEAE incidences were 47.1% and 67.6%, respectively. Steady-state trough brivaracetam and brivaracetam metabolite plasma concentrations increased proportionally with dose. The ≥ 50% responder rates (all seizure types) were 21.3% (all patients, n = 80) and 36.4% (patients with focal seizures, aged 4 to < 16 years, n = 22). CONCLUSIONS: This open-label trial in pediatric patients with epilepsy provides preliminary information that short-term, adjunctive brivaracetam treatment is well tolerated and effective. Plasma concentrations of brivaracetam and metabolites increased with increasing dose.
Asunto(s)
Anticonvulsivantes/uso terapéutico , Epilepsia/tratamiento farmacológico , Pirrolidinonas/uso terapéutico , Adolescente , Anticonvulsivantes/farmacología , Niño , Preescolar , Epilepsia/patología , Femenino , Humanos , Lactante , Masculino , Pirrolidinonas/farmacología , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Due to the challenges inherent in performing clinical trials in children, a systematic review of published clinical trials was performed to determine whether the efficacy of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in adults can be used to predict the efficacy of AEDs in the pediatric population. METHODS: Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library searches (1970-January 2010) were conducted for clinical trials of partial-onset seizures (POS) and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS) in adults and in children <2 and 2-18 years. Independent epidemiologists used standardized search and study evaluation criteria to select eligible trials. Forest plots were used to investigate the relative strength of placebo-subtracted effect measures. RESULTS: Among 30 adjunctive therapy POS trials in adults and children (2-18 years) that met evaluation criteria, effect measures were consistent between adults and children for gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, and topiramate. Placebo-subtracted median percent seizure reduction between baseline and treatment periods (ranging from 7.0% to 58.6% in adults and from 10.5% to 31.2% in children) was significant for 40/46 and 6/6 of the treatment groups studied. The ≥50% responder rate (ranging from 2.0% to 43.0% in adults and from 3.0% to 26.0% in children) was significant for 37/43 and 5/8 treatment groups. In children <2 years, an insufficient number of trials were eligible for analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review supports the extrapolation of efficacy results in adults to predict a similar adjunctive treatment response in 2- to 18-year-old children with POS.