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

OBJECTIVE: We previously analyzed data from three phase lll trials of adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV) in adults showing that the incidence and prevalence of drug-related central nervous system treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) quickly peaked and decreased over several weeks following BRV treatment initiation. However, that analysis did not assess psychiatric and behavioral side effects which can occur with antiseizure medication (ASM) treatment. Here, we investigate the time-course of psychiatric and behavioral TEAEs by week of BRV treatment and how these TEAEs were managed. METHODS: Data were pooled from three trials (N01252 [NCT00490035]; N01253 [NCT00464269]; N01358 [NCT01261325]) in adult patients (≥16 years of age) with focal-onset seizures receiving BRV adjunctive therapy. This post hoc analysis reports data on the incidence and prevalence of drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs over time in patients who received BRV doses of 50-200 mg/day (without titration) or placebo (PBO) during the 12-week treatment period. A logistic regression model was used to determine if psychiatric or behavioral comorbid conditions were predictors for drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs, or BRV discontinuation due to psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs. RESULTS: A total of 803 patients received BRV 50-200 mg/day, and 459 patients received PBO. Drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs were reported by 11.0 % of patients during adjunctive BRV treatment (PBO: 4.8 %) with onset early after BRV initiation (median time to onset of first drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAE: 15 days). Incidence peaked at week 1 and decreased over the first 4 weeks following BRV initiation. Prevalence peaked at week 4 and then remained stable between weeks 5-12. In an analysis excluding patients on concomitant levetiracetam (BRV: n = 744; PBO: n = 422), the incidence of drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs was similar to the incidence in the overall population. The most common drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs were irritability, insomnia, depression, and anxiety. Only 2 % of patients discontinued BRV due to psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs (PBO: 1.3 %), while most patients on BRV who reported drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs did not require a change in dose (84.1 %; PBO: 63.6 %). A history of psychiatric or behavioral comorbid conditions (not ongoing at BRV initiation) was not associated with an increased likelihood of drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs, or BRV discontinuation due to psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs. Ongoing psychiatric or behavioral comorbid conditions at BRV initiation increased the likelihood of drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs, but not the likelihood of BRV discontinuation due to psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs. CONCLUSIONS: Drug-related psychiatric and behavioral TEAEs occurred early during BRV treatment, and most patients did not require a change in BRV dose. These data can help guide clinician monitoring and patient expectations after starting BRV.

Safety and effectiveness of perampanel monotherapy after adjunctive therapy through retention rate in subjects with focal-onset seizures with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures: A multicenter retrospective study in Korea.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel monotherapy following conversion from adjunctive therapy. METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective, non-interventional study of Korean patients aged ≥12 years with focal-onset seizures (FOS) with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures. Data were extracted from electronic medical records of perampanel-treated patients from 1 February 2016 to 31 October 2020. Kaplan-Meier estimated retention rates, effectiveness, and safety were recorded. RESULTS: Subjects (n = 66, mean age 46.2 years) were mostly male (68.2%) with focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizure (71.2%). Mean duration of illness was 86.3 months. Retention rates after conversion to perampanel monotherapy at 3, 6, and 12 months (primary outcome) were 96.0%, 96.0%, and 75.6%, respectively. Overall retention rates in patients receiving perampanel as adjunctive or monotherapy at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after perampanel add-on were 100%, 98.3%, 95.9%, 92.6%, and 92.6%, respectively. Mean retention duration was 41.2 months (overall perampanel administration) and 21.4 months (monotherapy). Mean seizure frequency/28 days in the Full Analysis Set (n = 61) was comparable for adjunctive and monotherapy (0.2 ± 0.79 vs 0.2 ± 0.64; change between adjunctive and monotherapy periods: 0.0 ± 0.59; p = 0.498). Perampanel was well tolerated and no new safety signals were identified. Dizziness (4.6%), only reported during adjunctive therapy, was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Conversion to perampanel monotherapy from adjunctive therapy showed promising results in subjects with FOS with/without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures; further studies in a larger population are needed to confirm these encouraging data.

Value contribution of cenobamate for the treatment of Focal-Onset Seizures (FOS) in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) in Spain through reflective Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA).

INTRODUCTION: Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological conditions worldwide. The main goal of its treatment is to achieve seizure freedom without intolerable adverse effects. However, despite the availability of many anti-seizure medications, including the latest options, called third-generation anti-seizure medications (ASMs), approximately 40% of people with epilepsy present drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). Cenobamate is the first ASM approved in Spain for the adjunctive treatment of Focal-Onset Seizures (FOS) in adult patients with DRE. In a chronic disease with a portfolio of available ASMs, the decision to introduce a new therapeutic alternative must follow a holistic evaluation of value provided. Reflective Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methodology allows to determine the value contribution of a treatment in a given indication considering all relevant criteria for healthcare decision-making in a transparent and systematic manner from the perspective of relevant stakeholders. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the relative value contribution of cenobamate in the treatment of FOS in patients with DRE compared with third-generation ASMs using reflective MCDA-based methodology. METHODS: A systematic literature review (combining biomedical databases and grey literature sources) was performed to populate the Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking (EVIDEM) MCDA framework adapted to determine what represents value in the management of FOS in patients with DRE in Spain. The study was conducted in two phases. The first took place in 2021 with a multi-stakeholder group of eight participants. The second phase was conducted in 2022 with a multi-stakeholder group of 32 participants. Participants were trained in MCDA methodology and scored four evidence matrices (cenobamate vs. brivaracetam, vs. perampanel, vs. lacosamide and vs. eslicarbazepine acetate). Results were analyzed and discussed in a group meeting through reflective MCDA discussion methodology. RESULTS: DRE is considered a very severe condition associated with many important unmet needs, mainly with regard to the lack of more effective treatments to achieve the ultimate goal of treatment. Compared to third-generation ASMs, cenobamate is perceived to have a better efficacy profile based on improvements in responder rate and seizure freedom. Regarding safety, it is considered to have a similar profile to alternatives and a positive quality-of-life profile. Cenobamate results in lower direct medical costs (excluding pharmacological) and indirect costs. Overall, cenobamate is regarded as providing a high therapeutic impact and supported by high-quality evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Based on reflective MCDA methodology and stakeholders' experience in clinical management of epilepsy in Spain, cenobamate is perceived as a value-added option for the treatment of patients with DRE when compared with third-generation ASMs.

Number needed to treat and associated cost analysis of cenobamate versus third-generation anti-seizure medications for the treatment of focal-onset seizures in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy in Spain.

INTRODUCTION: Epilepsy is a serious neurological disease, ranking high in the top causes of disability. The main goal of its treatment is to achieve seizure freedom without intolerable adverse effects. However, approximately 40% of patients suffer from Drug-Resistant Epilepsy (DRE) despite the availability of the latest options called third-generation Anti-Seizure Medications(ASMs). Cenobamate is the first ASM approved in Spain for the adjunctive treatment of Focal-Onset Seizures (FOS) in adult patients with DRE. The introduction of a new drug increases the number of therapeutic options available, making it important to compare it with existing alternatives in terms of clinical benefit and efficiency. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the clinical benefit, in terms of the Number Needed to Treat (NNT), and the efficiency, in terms of Cost per NNT (CNT), associated with cenobamate versus third-generation ASMs used in Spain for the adjunctive treatment of FOS in patients with DRE. METHODS: The Number Needed to Treat data was calculated based on the ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom endpoints (defined as the percentage of patients achieving 50% and 100% reduction in seizure frequency, respectively), obtained from pivotal clinical trials performed with cenobamate, brivaracetam, perampanel, lacosamide, and eslicarbazepine acetate. The NNT was established as the inverse of the treatment responder rate minus the placebo responder rate and was calculated based on the minimum, mid-range Daily Defined Dose (DDD), and maximum doses studied in the pivotal clinical trials of each ASM. CNT was calculated by multiplying the annual treatment cost by NNT values for each treatment option. RESULTS: In terms of NNT, cenobamate was the ASM associated with the lowest values at all doses for both ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom compared with the alternatives. In terms of CNT, for ≥50% responder rate, cenobamate was the ASM associated with the lowest CNT values at DDD and lacosamide and eslicarbazepine acetate at the minimum and maximum dose, respectively. For seizure freedom, cenobamate was associated with the lowest CNT value at DDD and the maximum dose and lacosamide at the minimum dose. CONCLUSIONS: Cenobamate could represent the most effective ASM in all doses studied compared to the third-generation ASMs and the most efficient option at DDD for both ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom. This study could represent an important contribution towards informed decision-making regarding the selection of the most appropriate therapy for FOS in adult patients with DRE from a clinical and economical perspective in Spain.

The burden of chronic drug-refractory focal onset epilepsy: Can it be prevented?

Despite the many therapeutic options for epilepsy available today, a third of patients still have poorly controlled epilepsy. Over the years, their transition through lines of treatment exposes them to increased risk of disease progression, mortality, morbidity, mental distress, and not least significantly impaired quality of life (QoL). The present review explores the multiple factors contributing to the impairment of health-related QoL in PWE-including both seizure-related and non seizure-related. The analysis aims to identify potential areas of intervention and strategies for a more holistic approach to epilepsy care and inform policy-makers and healthcare providers in their approach to this condition.

Effectiveness and safety of perampanel as adjunctive therapy among Chinese patients with focal-onset epilepsy: A real-world prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: Perampanel (PER) has previously been shown to be effective and tolerable when used as an adjunctive therapy for patients with focal-onset seizures (FOS). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of PER as adjunctive therapy for patients with FOS in the Chinese population under real-world conditions for 1 year. METHODS: A prospective, single-center, 1-year observational study was conducted at Huashan Hospital, enrolling both under age (≥4 years old) and adult patients with FOS. Response to PER was assessed at 3-, 6-, and 12-month checkpoints by analyzing the 50 % responder rate, the seizure-free rate, and reduction in seizure frequency. RESULTS: One hundred and eight patients (mean age: 26.6 years, 56.5 % males) with FOS were included, with seventy-six patients finishing the 1-year follow-up (retention rate: 70.4 %, mean PER dose: 4.3 mg/day). The seizure frequency was reduced significantly at 3, 6, and 12 months relative to baseline (p < 0.001 for each seizure type). At 12 months, the responder rate was 65.8 %, and the seizure-free rate was 39.5 %. A significantly higher responder rate was found in patients with focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (p = 0.024), among which the percentage of patients with sleep-related epilepsy was significantly high (p = 0.045). Responders had a lower number of concomitant anti-seizure medications (ASMs) than the non-responders (p = 0.009). Drug-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in 37 % of patients, mostly mild or moderate, and the patients who experienced AEs had a higher daily dose of PER than those who did not (p = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Perampanel, an add-on therapy for focal-onset seizures, was found to be effective and tolerable in Chinese patients at 12 months.

Assessment of the long-term efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel in adolescent patients with epilepsy: Post hoc analysis of open-label extension studies.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis of four open-label extension (OLEx) studies evaluated the long-term efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel in adolescent patients (aged 12 to ≤17 years) with focal-onset seizures (FOS), with/without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), or generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS). METHODS: Patients who completed one of six double-blind, placebo-controlled studies could enter one of four OLEx studies comprising a blinded Conversion Period (6-16 weeks) followed by a Maintenance Phase (27 to ≤256 weeks; perampanel dose: ≤12 mg/day). Exposure, retention, seizure outcomes, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were analyzed. Efficacy outcomes were analyzed using observed case and last observation carried forward (LOCF) approaches; the latter was used to account for early dropouts. RESULTS: The Full Analysis Set comprised 309 adolescents with FOS (FBTCS, n = 109) and 19 with GTCS, and the Safety Analysis Set comprised 311 with FOS (FBTCS, n = 110) and 19 with GTCS. Mean (standard deviation) cumulative duration of perampanel exposure (weeks) was: FOS, 77.7 (58.7); FBTCS, 88.7 (63.8); and GTCS, 97.0 (35.5). Retention rates were maintained for ≤2 years (FOS, 50.0 %; FBTCS, 57.1 %; GTCS, 41.7 %). Seizure control (median percent reduction in seizure frequency/28 days) was sustained for up to 2 years; FOS (59.4 %, n = 113), FBTCS (64.6 %, n = 53), and GTCS (86.5 %, n = 17). At Year 2, 50 % responder rates were: FOS, 58.4 % (n = 66); FBTCS, 54.7 % (n = 29); and GTCS, 82.4 % (n = 14); seizure-freedom rates were: FOS, 5.3 % (n = 6); FBTCS, 24.5 % (n = 13); and GTCS, 35.3 % (n = 6). Long-term seizure control was observed even in LOCF analyses. The incidence of TEAEs was highest during Year 1 (FOS, n = 269 [86.5 %]; FBTCS, n = 95 [86.4 %]; GTCS, n = 15 [78.9 %]), compared with Years 2-4; the most common (≥10 % of patients) were dizziness, somnolence, and nasopharyngitis. No new safety signals emerged with long-term treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis suggests that long-term (≤2 years) adjunctive perampanel (≤12 mg/day) is efficacious and generally well tolerated in adolescent patients with FOS, with or without FBTCS, or GTCS.

Antiseizure effects of the cannabinoids in the amygdala-kindling model.

OBJECTIVE: Focal impaired awareness seizures (FIASs) are the most common seizure type in adults and are often refractory to medication. Management of FIASs is clinically challenging, and new interventions are needed for better seizure control. The amygdala-kindling model is a preclinical model of FIASs with secondary generalization. The present study assessed the efficacy of cannabidiol (CBD), ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and a combination of CBD and THC in a 15:1 ratio at suppressing focal and secondarily generalized seizures in the amygdala-kindled rat. METHODS: Fully kindled, male Sprague Dawley rats, with bipolar electrodes implanted in the right amygdala, were given either CBD (0-320 mg/kg), THC (0-40 mg/kg), or a combination of CBD and THC (15:1 ratio, multiple doses) intraperitoneally. Suprathreshold kindling stimulation was administered 1 h (THC) or 2 h (CBD) after drug injection, and outcomes were assessed using focal electroencephalographic recording and the Racine seizure scale. RESULTS: CBD alone produced a partial suppression of both generalized seizures (median effective dose [ED50 ] = 283 mg/kg) and focal seizures (ED40 = 320 mg/kg) at doses that did not produce ataxia. THC alone also produced partial suppression of generalized (ED50 = 10 mg/kg) and focal (ED50 = 30 mg/kg) seizures, but doses of 10 mg/kg and above produced hypolocomotion, although not ataxia. The addition of a low dose of THC to CBD (15:1) left-shifted the CBD dose-response curve, producing much lower ED50 s for both generalized (ED50 = 26 + 1.73 mg/kg) and focal (ED50 = 40 + 2.66 mg/kg) seizures. No ataxia or hypolocomotion was seen at these doses of the CBD + THC combination. SIGNIFICANCE: CBD and THC both have antiseizure properties in the amygdala-kindling model, although THC produces suppression of the amygdala focus only at doses that produce hypolocomotion. The addition of small amounts of THC greatly improves the effectiveness of CBD. A combination of CBD and THC might be useful for the management of FIASs.

Cenobamate treatment of focal-onset seizures: Quality of life and outcome during up to eight years of treatment.

A large proportion of patients with focal-onset epilepsy have frequent seizures despite treatment with newer anti-seizure medications (ASMs). We describe our experience optimizing cenobamate treatment for 49 patients treated at one center for up to eight years. We assessed the influence of treatment response on measurements of quality of life (QOLIE). Forty-nine patients were evaluated from three cenobamate regulatory trials: two open-label extensions of randomized placebo-controlled studies and one open-label safety study at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHU). Patients had focal-onset seizures despite treatment with one to three ASMs and were 18 years of age and older. Patients kept seizure diaries for the duration of the study and had tri-monthly evaluations. Seizure responder rates were determined, and patients with long-term seizure freedom (≥six months seizure free) were identified. Cenobamate doses were adjusted within the range of 100-400 mg/day. Johns Hopkins Hospital patients who were continuing treatment when the studies ended (n = 37) were administered the QOLIE-31 survey and a separate survey to assess changes in independence and epilepsy-linked disability at the end of the study at JHU. Thirty-seven of 49 (76%) patients continued treatment for three to eight years (median 5.6 years). In their final three months of treatment, 45% of patients achieved ≥75% seizure reduction, 29% had ≥90% reduction, and 16% were seizure free (responder rates computed with n = 49). Posttraumatic etiologies did not reduce treatment responses. Increased dosage of cenobamate across 150-400 mg/day range was significantly associated with higher responder rates (p < 0.001). High seizure responses-particularly ≥90% reduction-correlated with high QOLIE scores. Patients with drug-resistant focal-onset epilepsy had stable treatment responses during up to eight years of cenobamate treatment. Patients often tolerated high doses of cenobamate; high responders appeared to benefit with high QOLIE scores.

Identifying key unmet needs and value drivers in the treatment of focal-onset seizures (FOS) in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) in Spain through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA).

INTRODUCTION: Epilepsy is a serious neurological disease, ranking high in the top causes of disability. Approximately 40% of patients with epilepsy are pharmacoresistant after their seizures failed at least two antiseizure medications (ASMs). Adult patients experiencing focal-onset seizures (FOS) account for approximately 60% of all patients with epilepsy and they are more likely to become drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) than those with generalized onset. Drug-resistant epilepsy is associated with mortality, morbidity, and reduced quality of life. The information available on the clinical management, health outcomes, and unmet needs of the disease within the Spanish healthcare environment is very limited. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) allows determination of what represents value in a given indication considering all relevant criteria for healthcare decision-making in a transparent and systematic manner and from the perspective of relevant stakeholders. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to identify the burden of DRE (clinical, quality of life, and economic) and the unmet needs in Spain and to determine what represents value in the treatment of FOS in DRE patients from the perspective of Spanish epileptologists. METHODS: The steps taken to carry out the MCDA were based on previously published good methodological practices. A systematic literature review (combining biomedical databases and gray literature sources) was performed between March and April 2020. Results were reviewed and validated with three epileptologists in June 2020 and used to develop a MCDA value framework, adapted for FOS in DRE, composed of 12 quantitative criteria and 3 contextual criteria. A group of six Spanish epileptologists from four Spanish regions were trained in MCDA methodology before individually validating value criteria (and their definitions based on literature review findings) and assigned relative weights using an ordinal 6-points scale. Results were analyzed and discussed in a group meeting through reflective MCDA discussion methodology. RESULTS: Drug-resistant epilepsy is considered a very severe health problem with important unmet needs affecting a considerably sized population. While safety and impact on quality of life of available ASMs are considered adequate, efficacy remains insufficient for patients to achieve seizure freedom and maintain it over time. Hence, the therapeutic benefit of pharmacological treatments currently used is regarded as suboptimal. Drug-resistant epilepsy management is associated with moderate pharmacological, relevant direct medical and high indirect costs. Quality of evidence available for current treatments is moderate. It is considered that DRE does not currently stand as a key priority for the Spanish healthcare system. CONCLUSIONS: Drug-resistant epilepsy is considered a very severe health problem associated with relevant unmet needs. These include the lack of availability of specific treatment protocols, the need to improve early diagnosis by increasing the number of referrals to specialized epilepsy units and the availability of specific ASMs with improved efficacy and safety profiles, allowing to reach treatment objectives. Reflective MCDA provided a standardized, transparent approach to evaluate multiple criteria ascertaining what represents value from a holistic point of view and from the perspective of clinical experts, facilitating decision-making.

Pregabalin adjunctive therapy for focal onset seizures in children 1 month to <4 years of age: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, video-electroencephalographic trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pregabalin as adjunctive treatment for children (aged 1 month-<4 years) with focal onset seizures (FOS) using video-electroencephalography (V-EEG). METHODS: This randomized, placebo-controlled, international study included V-EEG seizure monitoring (48-72 hours) at baseline and over the last 3 days of 14-day (5-day dose escalation; 9-day fixed dose) double-blind pregabalin treatment (7 or 14 mg/kg/d in three divided doses). This was followed by a double-blind 1-week taper. The primary efficacy endpoint was log-transformed seizure rate (loge [24-hour seizure rate + 1]) for all FOS recorded during the double-blind V-EEG monitoring, evaluated in subjects who took ≥1 dose of study medication, experienced ≥1 baseline seizure(s), and had a treatment phase V-EEG. Safety and tolerability were assessed by adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory data, physical/neurological examinations, vital signs, and electrocardiograms. RESULTS: Overall, 175 patients were randomized (mean age = 28.2 months; 59% male, 69% white, 30% Asian) in a 2:1:2 ratio to pregabalin 7 or 14 mg/kg/d (n = 71 or n = 34, respectively), or placebo (n = 70). Pregabalin 14 mg/kg/d (n = 28) resulted in a statistically significant 35% reduction of loge (24-hour seizure rate + 1) versus placebo (n = 53; P = .022), an effect that was not observed with pregabalin 7 mg/kg/d (n = 59; P = .461). The most frequently reported treatment-emergent AEs for pregabalin 7 mg/kg/d, 14 mg/kg/d, and placebo, respectively, were somnolence (11.3%, 17.6%, and 5.7%) and upper respiratory tract infection (7.0%, 11.8%, and 11.4%). All AEs were mild to moderate in severity. SIGNIFICANCE: Pregabalin 14 mg/kg/d (but not 7 mg/kg/d) significantly reduced seizure rate in children with FOS, when assessed using V-EEG, compared with placebo. Both pregabalin dosages were generally safe and well tolerated in children 1 month to <4 years of age with FOS. Safety and tolerability were consistent with the known profile of pregabalin in older children with epilepsy.

Effectiveness and safety of perampanel as early add-on treatment in patients with epilepsy and focal seizures in the routine clinical practice: Spain prospective study (PERADON).

OBJECTIVE: Perampanel (PER) has been shown to be effective as an adjunctive therapy for controlling refractory focal-onset seizures (FOS). However, the information as early add-on for the treatment of FOS in the clinical practice is still scarce and must be further assessed. METHODS: An observational prospective study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of early add-on PER, assessed as 50% responders (seizure frequency reduced by at least 50% during the last 3 months as compared with baseline) rate at 6 and 12 months, in patients with FOS in the routine clinical practice of Spain. RESULTS: One hundred and thirteen patients (mean age: 40.3 years, 51.3% male) with FOS received PER as early add-on (1st add-on: 37.2% and 2nd: 62.8%) for a mean exposure of 11 months (mean PER dose: 6.3 mg/day at month 12). At 6 months, 50.4% and 20.4% of the patients were responders and seizure-free (respectively) relative to baseline (3 months prior to PER initiation), and at 12 months, 68.1% and 26.5% of the patients were responders and seizure-free (respectively), relative to baseline (3 months prior to PER initiation). The retention rate at 6 and 12 months was 83.2% and 80.5%, respectively. The percentage of seizure-free patients at 12 months was significantly (p = 0.033) higher when PER was added as first vs. second add-on. The number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) was significantly reduced from baseline to 6 and 12 months (p = 0.001). Treatment was simplified in 23.9% of patients at the end of the observation period. Drug-related adverse events (AEs), most mild or moderate, were reported in 30.1% of patients, with irritability (8%) and dizziness (7.1%) as the most frequent ones. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first observational, prospective study to evaluate efficacy and safety of early adjunctive treatment with PER in patients with focal epilepsy at 12 months. Perampanel demonstrated a good efficacy and safety profile when used at a median dose of 6 mg/day, regardless of the combination with other AEDs. Adverse events were mild or moderate, with dizziness being the most frequent one.

Efficacy and safety of eslicarbazepine acetate versus controlled-release carbamazepine monotherapy in newly diagnosed epilepsy: A phase III double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the efficacy and safety of once-daily eslicarbazepine acetate in comparison with twice-daily (BID) controlled-release carbamazepine (carbamazepine-CR) monotherapy in newly diagnosed focal epilepsy patients. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial (NCT01162460) utilized a stepwise design with 3 dose levels. Patients who remained seizure-free for the 26-week evaluation period (level A: eslicarbazepine acetate 800 mg/carbamazepine-CR 200 mg BID) entered a 6-month maintenance period. If a seizure occurred during the evaluation period, patients were titrated to the next target level (level B: eslicarbazepine acetate 1200 mg/carbamazepine-CR 400 mg BID, level C: eslicarbazepine acetate 1600 mg/carbamazepine-CR 600 mg BID) and the evaluation period began again. The primary endpoint was the proportion of seizure-free patients for 6 months after stabilization in the per protocol set. The predefined noninferiority criteria were -12% absolute and -20% relative difference between treatment groups. RESULTS: Eight hundred fifteen patients were randomly assigned; 785 (388 in the eslicarbazepine acetate group and 397 in the carbamazepine-CR group) were included in the per protocol set, and 813 (401 in the eslicarbazepine acetate group and 412 in the carbamazepine-CR group) were included in the full analysis set for the primary analysis. Overall, 71.1% of eslicarbazepine acetate-treated patients and 75.6% of carbamazepine-CR-treated patients were seizure-free for ≥6 months at the last evaluated dose (average risk difference = -4.28%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -10.30 to 1.74; relative risk difference = -5.87%, 95% CI = -13.50 to 2.44) in the per protocol set. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between groups for patients in the safety set. Noninferiority was also demonstrated in the full analysis set, as 70.8% of patients with eslicarbazepine acetate and 74.0% with carbamazepine-CR were seizure-free at the last evaluated dose (average risk difference = -3.07, 95% CI = -9.04 to 2.89). SIGNIFICANCE: Treatment with eslicarbazepine acetate was noninferior to BID carbamazepine-CR. With its once-daily formulation, eslicarbazepine acetate provides a useful option for first-line monotherapy for adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy and focal onset seizures.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Adjunctive Brivaracetam in Patients with Focal-Onset Seizures on Specific Concomitant Antiseizure Medications: Pooled Analysis of Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: This article aimed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV) in adults with focal-onset seizures on specific concomitant antiseizure medications (ASMs) taken as part of their treatment regimen. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of pooled data from double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (N01252/NCT00490035, N01253/NCT00464269, and N01358/NCT01261325) in patients with uncontrolled focal-onset seizures randomized to BRV (50-200 mg/day) or placebo on the most common concomitant ASMs at trial initiation. RESULTS: Nine concomitant ASMs were analyzed: carbamazepine (CBZ), lamotrigine (LTG), valproate (VPA), oxcarbazepine (OXC), topiramate (TPM), phenytoin (PHT), lacosamide (LCM), clobazam (CLB), and phenobarbital (PHB). Reduction over placebo in focal-onset seizure frequency per 28 days with BRV ranged from 11.7% (concomitant OXC) to 33.5% (concomitant PHB). The median percentage reduction from baseline in focal-onset seizure frequency per 28 days ranged from 25.5% to 42.8% in patients on BRV (placebo 4.4-21.2%); 50% responder rates ranged from 31.9% to 44.9% in patients on BRV (placebo 11.4-25.2%). In patients on BRV, seizure freedom ranged from 1.4% (concomitant PHT) to 12.5% (concomitant LCM); seizure freedom ranged from 0% to 1.2% in patients on placebo. All efficacy endpoints analyzed were consistently numerically higher in patients on BRV versus placebo. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was generally similar across subgroups by specific concomitant ASMs in patients on BRV (range 60.8-74.5%) or placebo (range 53.8-66.7%). Drug-related TEAEs were numerically higher across all subgroups by concomitant ASM in patients on BRV (range 35.2-48.3%) versus placebo (range 23.9-37.1%). Discontinuations due to TEAEs ranged from 2.9% to 13.3% in patients on BRV and was 0-5.7% for patients taking placebo across subgroups. CONCLUSION: BRV was efficacious and well tolerated regardless of the specific concomitant ASMs used as part of their treatment regimen. These data show that in patients with focal-onset seizures, BRV provides additional efficacy to a broad range of ASMs.

A comparison of cenobamate with other newer antiseizure medications for adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of cenobamate with other newer anti-seizure medications (ASMs) including brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, perampanel, and zonisamide, approved for adjunctive treatment of drug-resistant focal-onset seizures (FOS) in adults with epilepsy. METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to obtain relevant efficacy, safety, and tolerability data for ASMs for the treatment of drug-resistant FOS. All studies were thoroughly assessed for potential sources of heterogeneity and analysed via Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMAs). Efficacy outcomes were ≥50 % responder rate and seizure freedom during the maintenance period, which were modelled simultaneously using a multinomial Bayesian NMA. Safety and tolerability outcomes were the proportion of patients who experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and the proportion who experienced at least one TEAE leading to discontinuation. RESULTS: The SLR identified 76 studies, of which 23 were included in the Bayesian NMAs. Cenobamate was associated with statistically significant higher rates for the ≥50 % responder rate and seizure freedom outcomes compared with all ASMs analysed. The point estimates indicated that cenobamate was associated with higher rates of experiencing at least one TEAE and at least one TEAE leading to discontinuation compared with brivaracetam, lacosamide, and zonisamide; however, no results were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Cenobamate was associated with increased efficacy compared with all ASMs analysed. There were no statistically significant differences in the safety and tolerability outcomes. The results presented corroborate the conclusions drawn from previous published NMAs, which also highlight the notable efficacy of cenobamate in comparison with other ASMs.

Long-term efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel in patients from the Asia-Pacific region with refractory focal-onset seizures in Study 335 open-label extension.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive perampanel for the treatment of patients with refractory focal-onset seizures (FOS), with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), from the Asia-Pacific region. METHODS: Study 335 (NCT01618695) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III study. Patients aged ≥12 years with refractory FOS who completed the Core Study could enter an open-label extension (OLEx) Phase (6-week Conversion and ≥46-week Maintenance Period). Endpoints included median percent reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days, 50% responder and seizure-freedom rates, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: The Intent-to-Treat Analysis Set included 704 patients (529 received perampanel and 175 received placebo during the Core Study; all patients received perampanel during OLEx). The median percent reduction in seizure frequency and 50% responder rates in patients who received perampanel during the Core Study were maintained throughout the OLEx Phase (Week 64-75: 55.9% and 54.3%, respectively). Seizure freedom for ≥12 consecutive months at any time during perampanel treatment was achieved by 4.1% of patients with FOS and 14.2% of patients with FBTCS. Among patients treated with perampanel 4 mg/day (n = 83), median reduction in seizure frequency was lower in those who received concomitant enzyme-inducing anti-seizure medications (EIASMs) than those who received non-EIASMs. The most common TEAE was dizziness (n = 318; 46.8%); 141 (20.8%) patients had TEAEs that led to study/drug withdrawal. SIGNIFICANCE: Overall, long-term seizure control was achieved with adjunctive perampanel in patients with refractory FOS, with or without FBTCS, in an Asia-Pacific population.

Perampanel as monotherapy or first adjunctive therapy in pediatric and adult patients with epilepsy: the first United States-based phase IV open-label ELEVATE study.

ELEVATE (Study 410; NCT03288129) is the first prospective, multicenter, open-label, Phase IV study of perampanel as monotherapy or first adjunctive therapy in patients aged ≥ 4 years with focal-onset seizures or generalized tonic-clonic seizures in the United States. The study included Screening, Titration (≤ 13 weeks), Maintenance (39 weeks), and Follow-up (4 weeks) Periods. During Titration, perampanel was initiated at 2 mg/day and up-titrated to 4 mg/day at Week 3. Depending on response and tolerability, optional up-titrations to a maximum of 12 mg/day occurred. The primary endpoint was retention rate; additional endpoints included seizure-freedom rate, 50% responder rate, and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). At baseline, 10 (18.5%) patients were assigned to the monotherapy group and 44 (81.5%) patients to the first adjunctive therapy group. However, due to the addition of an anti-seizure medication along with perampanel on the first day of treatment, one patient was excluded from the monotherapy subgroup analyses. The mean perampanel exposure duration was 39.8 weeks and 32 (59.3%) patients completed the study. Retention rate at 12 months (or study completion) was 63.0% (monotherapy, 77.8%; first adjunctive therapy, 59.1%). Seizure-freedom rate during the Maintenance Period was 32.7% (monotherapy, 44.4%; first adjunctive therapy, 29.5%) and the 50% responder rate was 78.7% (monotherapy, 85.7%; first adjunctive therapy, 76.9%). TEAEs and serious TEAEs were reported by 88.9% (n = 48/54) and 7.4% (n = 4/54) of patients, respectively. Overall, the efficacy and safety of perampanel as monotherapy or first adjunctive therapy support the use of perampanel as early-line treatment for epilepsy.

Efficacy and Safety of adjunctive Perampanel in a prospective, real-world, Phase IV study in Indian patients aged ≥12 years for Treatment of focal-onset Epilepsy: Study 508.

OBJECTIVE: ESPRITE (Study 508; NCT03836924) evaluated the real-world safety, tolerability, and efficacy of adjunctive perampanel in patients aged ≥12 years with focal-onset seizures (FOS), with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), in India. METHODS: ESPRITE was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, observational, Phase IV study with a 6-month Treatment Period. Patients were aged ≥12 years and had been prescribed perampanel for adjunctive treatment of FOS, with or without FBTCS. Assessments included incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; primary endpoint), median percent reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline, 50% responder rates, and seizure-freedom rates. RESULTS: Overall, 200 patients were enrolled (199 patients in the Safety Analysis Set and 174 patients who completed all visits in the main efficacy analyses). TEAEs (all mild or moderate in severity) were reported in 18.1% (n = 36/199) of patients (the most common were dizziness [3.0%] and irritability [2.0%]). TEAEs leading to discontinuation of perampanel were reported in 2.0% of patients; no deaths or serious TEAEs occurred. At 6 months, median percent reduction in seizure frequency was 100.0%, 50% responder rate was 83.3%, and seizure-freedom rate was 49.4%. SIGNIFICANCE: Adjunctive perampanel (at a mean daily dose of 4 mg/day) was shown to be well tolerated and effective in patients aged ≥12 years with FOS, with or without FBTCS, from India. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Many patients do not receive adequate treatment for epilepsy and need effective seizure control medications. In this 6-month clinical study, 199 patients from India, aged 12 years or older, added perampanel to the anti-seizure medications they were already taking. At 6 months, 49% of patients experienced no seizures since starting perampanel and seizure frequency was reduced by half in 83% of patients. Side effects occurred in 18% of patients (most commonly dizziness and irritability) and caused 2% to stop perampanel; no deaths were reported. Perampanel was an effective and generally safe added medication for patients with epilepsy from India.

Narrative Review of Brivaracetam: Preclinical Profile and Clinical Benefits in the Treatment of Patients with Epilepsy.

One third of patients with epilepsy will continue to have uncontrolled seizures despite treatment with antiseizure medications (ASMs). There is therefore a need to develop novel ASMs. Brivaracetam (BRV) is an ASM that was developed in a major drug discovery program aimed at identifying selective, high-affinity synaptic vesicle protein 2A (SV2A) ligands, the target molecule of levetiracetam. BRV binds to SV2A with 15- to 30-fold higher affinity and greater selectivity than levetiracetam. BRV has broad-spectrum antiseizure activity in animal models of epilepsy, a favorable pharmacokinetic profile, few clinically relevant drug-drug interactions, and rapid brain penetration. BRV is available in oral and intravenous formulations and can be initiated at target dose without titration. Efficacy and safety of adjunctive BRV (50-200 mg/day) treatment of focal-onset seizures was demonstrated in three pivotal phase III trials (NCT00490035/NCT00464269/NCT01261325), including in patients who had previously failed levetiracetam. Efficacy and safety of adjunctive BRV were also demonstrated in adult Asian patients with focal-onset seizures (NCT03083665). In several open-label trials (NCT00150800/NCT00175916/NCT01339559), long-term safety and tolerability of adjunctive BRV was established, with efficacy maintained for up to 14 years, with high retention rates. Evidence from daily clinical practice highlights BRV effectiveness and tolerability in specific epilepsy patient populations with high unmet needs: the elderly (≥ 65 years of age), children (< 16 years of age), patients with cognitive impairment, patients with psychiatric comorbid conditions, and patients with acquired epilepsy of specific etiologies (post-stroke epilepsy/brain tumor related epilepsy/traumatic brain injury-related epilepsy). Here, we review the preclinical profile and clinical benefits of BRV from pivotal trials and recently published evidence from daily clinical practice.

One in three people with epilepsy continue to have seizures despite treatment. Brivaracetam is a medicine used to treat seizures in people with epilepsy. It binds to a protein in the brain (synaptic vesicle protein 2A) and is effective in many different animal models of epilepsy. Brivaracetam enters the brain quickly. It has few interactions with other medicines, which is important because people with epilepsy may be taking additional medicines for epilepsy or other conditions. Brivaracetam is available as tablets, oral solution, and solution for intravenous injection, can be started at the recommended target dose, and is easy to use. In three phase III trials, people with uncontrolled focal-onset seizures taking brivaracetam 50­200 mg each day had fewer seizures than people taking a placebo. Brivaracetam was tolerated well. It also worked well in many people who had previously not responded to antiseizure medications. The efficacy of brivaracetam treatment is maintained for up to 14 years. Brivaracetam treatment reduces seizures in the elderly (≥ 65 years old), in children (< 16 years old), in people with cognitive or learning disabilities, in people with additional psychiatric conditions, and in people with different causes of epilepsy (post-stroke epilepsy, brain-tumor related epilepsy, and traumatic brain injury-related epilepsy). Here, we review brivaracetam characteristics and the results when people with epilepsy received brivaracetam in key clinical trials and real-world studies in daily clinical practice.

The latest advances in the pharmacological management of focal epilepsies in children: a narrative review.

INTRODUCTION: Focal epilepsy constitutes the most common epilepsy in children, and medical treatment represents the first-line therapy in this condition. The main goal of medical treatment for children and adolescents with epilepsy is the achievement of seizure freedom or, in drug-resistant epilepsies, a significant seizure reduction, both minimizing antiseizure medications (ASM)-related adverse events, thus improving the patient's quality of life. However, up to 20-40% of pediatric epilepsies are refractory to drug treatments. New ASMs came to light in the pediatric landscape, improving the drug profile compared to that of the preexisting ones. Clinicians should consider several factors during the drug choice process, including patient and medication-specific characteristics. AREAS COVERED: This narrative review aims to summarize the latest evidence on the effectiveness and tolerability of the newest ASMs administered as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy in pediatric epilepsies with focal onset seizures, providing a practical appraisal based on the existing evidence. EXPERT OPINION: The latest ASMs have the potential to be effective in the pharmacological management of focal onset seizures in children, and treatment choice should consider several drug- and epilepsy-related factors. Future treatments should be increasingly personalized and targeted on patient-specific pathways. Future research should focus on discovering new chemical compounds and repurposing medications used for other indications.