Real-life evidence about the use of intravenous brivaracetam in urgent seizures: The BRIV-IV study.

PURPOSE: Urgent seizures are a medical emergency for which new therapies are still needed. This study evaluated the use of intravenous brivaracetam (IV-BRV) in an emergency setting in clinical practice. METHODS: BRIV-IV was a retrospective, multicenter, observational study. It included patients ≥18 years old who were diagnosed with urgent seizures (including status epilepticus (SE), acute repetitive seizures, and high-risk seizures) and who were treated with IV-BRV according to clinical practice in 14 hospital centers. Information was extracted from clinical charts and included in an electronic database. Primary effectiveness endpoints included the rate of IV-BRV responder patients, the rate of patients with a sustained response without seizure relapse in 12 h, and the time between IV-BRV administration and clinical response. Primary safety endpoints were comprised the percentage of patients with adverse events and those with adverse events leading to discontinuation. RESULTS: A total of 156 patients were included in this study. The mean age was 57.7 ± 21.5 years old with a prior diagnosis of epilepsy for 57.1% of patients. The most frequent etiologies were brain tumor-related (18.1%) and vascular (11.2%) epilepsy. SE was diagnosed in 55.3% of patients. The median time from urgent seizure onset to IV treatment administration was 60.0 min (range: 15.0-360.0), and the median time from IV treatment to IV-BRV was 90.0 min (range: 30.0-2400.0). Regarding dosage, the mean bolus infusion was 163.0 ± 73.0 mg and the mean daily dosage was 195.0 ± 87.0 mg. A total of 77.6% of patients responded to IV-BRV (66.3% with SE vs. 91% other urgent seizures) with a median response time of 30.0 min (range: 10.0-60.0). A sustained response was achieved in 62.8% of patients. However, adverse events were reported in 14.7%, which were predominantly somnolence and fatigue, with 4.5% leading to discontinuation. Eighty-six percent of patients were discharged with oral brivaracetam. CONCLUSION: IV-BRV in emergency settings was effective, and tolerability was good for most patients. However, a larger series is needed to confirm the outcomes.

Risk of Developing Epilepsy after Autoimmune Encephalitis.

BACKGROUND: Acute symptomatic seizures (ASS) are a common manifestation of autoimmune encephalitis (AE), but the risk of developing epilepsy as a sequela of AE remains unknown, and factors predisposing the development of epilepsy have not been fully identified. OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of developing epilepsy in AE and study related risk factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective single centre study including patients diagnosed with AE according to criteria described by Graus et al., with a minimum follow-up of 12 months after AE resolution. The sample was divided according to whether patients developed epilepsy or not. RESULTS: A total of 19 patients were included; 3 (15.8%) had AE with intracellular antibodies, 9 (47.4%) with extracellular antibodies, and 7 (36.8%) were seronegative. During follow-up, 3 patients (15.8%) died, 4 (21.1%) presented relapses of AE, and 11 (57.89%) developed epilepsy. There was a significant association between the development of epilepsy and the presence of hippocampal atrophy in control brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (p = 0.037), interictal epileptiform discharges (IED) on control electroencephalogram (EEG) (p = 0.045), and immunotherapy delay (p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Hippocampal atrophy in neuroimaging, IED on EEG during follow-up, and immunotherapy delay could be predictors of the development of epilepsy in patients with AE.