Assessment of cerebral drug occupancy in humans using a single PET-scan: A [11C]UCB-J PET study.

PURPOSE: Here, we evaluate a PET displacement model with a Single-step and Numerical solution in healthy individuals using the synaptic vesicle glycoprotein (SV2A) PET-tracer [11C]UCB-J and the anti-seizure medication levetiracetam (LEV). We aimed to (1) validate the displacement model by comparing the brain LEV-SV2A occupancy from a single PET scan with the occupancy derived from two PET scans and the Lassen plot and (2) determine the plasma LEV concentration-SV2A occupancy curve in healthy individuals. METHODS: Eleven healthy individuals (five females, mean age 35.5 [range: 25-47] years) underwent two 120-min [11C]UCB-J PET scans where an LEV dose (5-30 mg/kg) was administered intravenously halfway through the first PET scan to partially displace radioligand binding to SV2A. Five individuals were scanned twice on the same day; the remaining six were scanned once on two separate days, receiving two identical LEV doses. Arterial blood samples were acquired to determine the arterial input function and plasma LEV concentrations. Using the displacement model, the SV2A-LEV target engagement was calculated and compared with the Lassen plot method. The resulting data were fitted with a single-site binding model. RESULTS: SV2A occupancies and VND estimates derived from the displacement model were not significantly different from the Lassen plot (p = 0.55 and 0.13, respectively). The coefficient of variation was 14.6% vs. 17.3% for the Numerical and the Single-step solution in Bland-Altman comparisons with the Lassen plot. The average half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50), as estimated from the area under the curve of the plasma LEV concentration, was 12.5 µg/mL (95% CI: 5-25) for the Single-Step solution, 11.8 µg/mL (95% CI: 4-25) for the Numerical solution, and 6.3 µg/mL (95% CI: 0.08-21) for the Lassen plot. Constraining Emax to 100% did not significantly improve model fits. CONCLUSION: Plasma LEV concentration vs. SV2A occupancy can be determined in humans using a single PET scan displacement model. The average concentration of the three computed IC50 values ranges between 6.3 and 12.5 µg/mL. The next step is to use the displacement model to evaluate LEV occupancy and corresponding plasma concentrations in relation to treatment efficacy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05450822. Retrospectively registered 5 July 2022 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results? term=NCT05450822&Search=Search.

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.

Brivaracetam use in clinical practice: a Delphi consensus on its role as first add-on therapy in focal epilepsy and beyond.

BACKGROUND: Antiseizure medications remain the cornerstone of treatment for epilepsy, although a proportion of individuals with the condition will continue to experience seizures despite appropriate therapy. Treatment choices for epilepsy are based on variables related to both the individual patient and the available medications. Brivaracetam is a third-generation agent antiseizure medication. METHODS: We carried out a Delphi consensus exercise to define the role of brivaracetam in clinical practice and to provide guidance about its use as first add-on ASM and in selected clinical scenarios. A total of 15 consensus statements were drafted by an expert panel following review of the literature and all were approved in the first round of voting by panelists. The consensus indicated different clinical scenarios for which brivaracetam can be a good candidate for treatment, including first add-on use. RESULTS: Overall, brivaracetam was considered to have many advantageous characteristics that render it a suitable option for patients with focal epilepsy, including a fast onset of action, favorable pharmacokinetic profile with few drug-drug interactions, broad-spectrum activity, and being well tolerated across a range of doses. Brivaracetam is also associated with sustained clinical response and good tolerability in the long term. CONCLUSIONS: These characteristics also make it suitable as an early add-on for the elderly and for patients with post-stroke epilepsy or status epilepticus as highlighted by the present Delphi consensus.

Therapeutic Effects of Time-Limited Treatment with Brivaracetam on Posttraumatic Epilepsy after Fluid Percussion Injury in the Rat.

Mounting evidence suggests the synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A (SV2A) targeted by levetiracetam may contribute to epileptogenesis. Levetiracetam has shown anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, neuroprotective, and possible antiepileptogenic effects in brain injury and seizure/epilepsy models, and a phase 2 study has signaled a possible clinical antiepileptogenic effect. Brivaracetam shows greater affinity and specificity for SV2A than levetiracetam and broader preclinical antiseizure effects. Thus, we assessed the antiepileptogenic/disease-modifying potential of brivaracetam in an etiologically realistic rat posttraumatic epilepsy model optimized for efficient drug testing. Brivaracetam delivery protocols were designed to maintain clinical moderate-to-high plasma levels in young (5-week-old) male Sprague-Dawley rats for 4 weeks. Treatment protocols were rapidly screened in 4-week experiments using small groups of animals to ensure against rigorous testing of futile treatment protocols. The antiepileptogenic effects of brivaracetam treatment initiated 30 minutes, 4 hours, and 8 hours after rostral parasagittal fluid percussion injury (rpFPI) were then compared with vehicle-treated controls in a fully powered blind and randomized 16-week validation. Seizures were evaluated by video-electrocorticography using a 5-electrode epidural montage. Endpoint measures included incidence, frequency, duration, and spread of seizures. Group sizes and recording durations were supported by published power analyses. Three months after treatment ended, rats treated with brivaracetam starting at 4 hours post-FPI (the best-performing protocol) experienced a 38% decrease in overall incidence of seizures, 59% decrease in seizure frequency, 67% decrease in time spent seizing, and a 45% decrease in the proportion of spreading seizures that was independent of duration-based seizure definition. Thus, brivaracetam shows both antiepileptogenic and disease-modifying properties after rpFPI. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The rpFPI model, which likely incorporates epileptogenic mechanisms operating after human head injury, can be used to efficiently screen investigational treatment protocols and assess antiepileptogenic/disease-modifying effects. Our studies 1) support a role for SV2A in epileptogenesis, 2) suggest that brivaracetam and other drugs targeting SV2A should be considered for human clinical trials of prevention of post-traumatic epilepsy after head injury, and 3) provide data to inform the design of treatment protocols for clinical trials.

Combination therapy with pazopanib and tivantinib modulates VEGF and c-MET levels in refractory advanced solid tumors.

The vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)/VEGFR and hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/c-MET signaling pathways act synergistically to promote angiogenesis. Studies indicate VEGF inhibition leads to increased levels of phosphorylated c-MET, bypassing VEGF-mediated angiogenesis and leading to chemoresistance. We conducted a phase 1 clinical trial with 32 patients with refractory solid tumors to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of combinations of VEGF-targeting pazopanib and the putative c-MET inhibitor ARQ197 (tivantinib) at 5 dose levels (DLs). Patients either took pazopanib and tivantinib from treatment initiation (escalation phase) or pazopanib alone for 7 days, with paired tumor sampling, prior to starting combination treatment (expansion phase). Hypertension was the most common adverse event. No more than 1 dose limiting toxicity (DLT) occurred at any DL, so the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was not determined; DL5 (800 mg pazopanib daily and 360 mg tivantinib BID) was used during the expansion phase. Twenty of 31 evaluable patients achieved stable disease lasting up to 22 cycles. Circulating VEGF, VEGFR2, HGF, and c-MET levels were assessed, and only VEGF levels increased. Tumor c-MET levels (total and phosphorylated) were determined in paired biopsies before and after 7 days of pazopanib treatment. Total intact c-MET decreased in 6 of 7 biopsy pairs, in contrast to previously reported c-MET elevation in response to VEGF inhibition. These results are discussed in the context of our previously reported analysis of epithelial-mesenchymal transition in these tumors.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study of tivantinib in Japanese patients with MET-high hepatocellular carcinoma.

A previous randomized phase 2 study of hepatocellular carcinoma revealed that the c-Met inhibitor tivantinib as second-line treatment significantly prolonged progression-free survival in a subpopulation whose tumor samples highly expressed c-Met (MET-high). Accordingly, this phase 3 study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of tivantinib as a second-line treatment for Japanese patients with MET-high hepatocellular carcinoma. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted at 60 centers in Japan. Hepatocellular carcinoma patients with one prior sorafenib treatment and those with MET-high tumor samples were eligible for inclusion. Registered patients were randomly assigned to either the tivantinib or placebo group at a 2:1 ratio and were treated with twice-a-day oral tivantinib (120 mg bid) or placebo until the discontinuation criteria were met. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival while the secondary endpoints included overall survival and safety. Between January 2014 and June 2016, 386 patients provided consent, and 195 patients were randomized to the tivantinib (n = 134) or placebo (n = 61) group. Median progression-free survival was 2.8 (95% confidence interval: 2.7-2.9) and 2.3 (1.5-2.8) mo in the tivantinib and placebo groups, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.74, 95% confidence interval: 0.52-1.04, P = .082). Median overall survival was 10.3 (95% confidence interval: 8.1-11.6) and 8.5 (6.2-11.4) mo in the tivantinib and placebo group, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.82, 95% confidence interval: 0.58-1.15). The most common tivantinib-related grade ≥3 adverse events were neutropenia (31.6%), leukocytopenia (24.8%), and anemia (12.0%). This study did not confirm the significant efficacy of tivantinib as a second-line treatment for Japanese patients with MET-high hepatocellular carcinoma. (NCT02029157).

A randomized phase 2 network trial of tivantinib plus cetuximab versus cetuximab in patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: MET signaling is a well described mechanism of resistance to anti-EGFR therapy, and MET overexpression is common in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCCs). In the current trial, the authors compared the oral MET inhibitor tivantinib (ARQ197) in combination with cetuximab (the TC arm) versus a control arm that received cetuximab monotherapy (C) in patients with recurrent/metastatic HNSCC. METHODS: In total, 78 evaluable patients with cetuximab-naive, platinum-refractory HNSCC were enrolled, including 40 on the TC arm and 38 on the C arm (stratified by human papillomavirus [HPV] status). Patients received oral tivantinib 360 mg twice daily and intravenous cetuximab 500 mg/m2 once every 2 weeks. The primary outcome was the response rate (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1), and secondary outcomes included progression-free and overall survival. After patients progressed on the C arm, tivantinib monotherapy was optional. RESULTS: The response rate was 7.5% in the TC arm (N = 3; 1 complete response) and 7.9% in the C arm (N = 3; not significantly different [NS]). The median progression-free survival in both arms was 4 months (NS), and the median overall survival was 8 months (NS). Both treatments were well tolerated, with a trend toward increased hematologic toxicities in the TC arm (12.5% had grade 3 leukopenia). The response rate in 31 HPV-positive/p16-positive patients was 0% in both arms, whereas the response rate in HPV-negative patients was 12.7% (12.5% in the TC arm and 13% in the C arm). Fifteen patients received tivantinib monotherapy, and no responses were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Combined tivantinib plus cetuximab does not significantly improve the response rate or survival compared with cetuximab alone but does increase toxicity in an unselected HNSCC population. Cetuximab responses appear to be limited to patients who have HPV-negative HNSCC. MET-aberration-focused trials for HNSCC and the use of higher potency, selective MET inhibitors remain of interest.

Influence of dose and antiepileptic comedication on brivaracetam serum concentrations in patients with epilepsy.

The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) on brivaracetam (BRV) trough serum concentrations. A total number of 368 routinely collected blood samples from 148 inpatients from Mara Hospital (Bethel Epilepsy Center) and von Bodelschwingh Foundation Bethel were retrospectively evaluated. Generalized estimation equations (GEEs) were used for statistical analysis. GEE analyses showed that BRV trough serum concentrations were significantly lower in patients with strong enzyme-inducing AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, and/or phenobarbital/primidone, -49%), but were not affected by concomitant intake of oxcarbazepine or eslicarbazepine. Age and gender did not have a significant effect. An alternative GEE model analyzing the BRV level-to-dose ratios yielded comparable results. Our results from routine therapeutic drug monitoring data indicate that the effect of enzyme-inducing AEDs on BRV serum concentrations is stronger than the 20%-30% reduction in BRV exposure previously reported in pharmacokinetics studies. Further research is necessary to evaluate these differences and to elucidate possible clinical consequences.

Time course of 75%-100% efficacy response of adjunctive brivaracetam.

BACKGROUND: Time to sustained seizure frequency reduction can provide clinically meaningful epilepsy outcomes. AIMS OF THE STUDY: To examine the time course of brivaracetam (BRV) efficacy in adults with focal seizures and focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS). METHODS: Post hoc analysis of data pooled from three randomized controlled trials of oral adjunctive BRV in adults with epilepsy. Patients with focal epilepsy and a subpopulation with FBTCS receiving BRV 50, 100, or 200 mg/d (initiated without up-titration) or placebo for 12 weeks were analyzed for time to sustained ≥75%, ≥90%, and 100% seizure reduction without interruption from first day until trial ends. RESULTS: Evaluation included 1160 patients with focal seizures, including 352 patients with FBTCS. Sustained ≥75%, ≥90%, and 100% response in focal seizures was higher from day 1 for BRV 100 and 200 mg/d vs placebo (P < .01). Sustained ≥75% and 100% FBTCS reduction from day 1 was higher for BRV 100 and 200-mg/d groups vs placebo (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients achieving 75%-100% sustained seizure frequency reduction (all focal seizure types and the subpopulation with FBTCS) with oral BRV (100 or 200 mg/d) achieved this response on the first-treatment day.

Safety and tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam in epilepsy: In-depth pooled analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this analysis was to provide a comprehensive analysis of safety data for adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV), an antiepileptic drug (AED) of the racetam class, for treatment of focal seizures in patients with epilepsy. METHODS: Data were pooled from two phase II, placebo-controlled, double-blind, dose-ranging trials (N01114 [ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00175929], N01193 [NCT00175825]) and three phase III, placebo-controlled, double-blind, 12-week trials (N01252 [NCT00490035], N01253 [NCT00464269], and N01358 [NCT01261325]) in patients aged ≥16 years with focal seizures, as well as a phase III, placebo-controlled, double-blind, 16-week trial in patients aged ≥16 years with focal or generalized epilepsy (N01254 [NCT00504881]). Data are presented for the approved therapeutic dose range of 50-200 mg/day. Data for BRV administered intravenously (25-150 mg doses) were pooled separately from one phase III trial (N01258 NCT01405508]) and two clinical pharmacology trials (N01256 [Part B] [UCB Pharma, data on file]; EP0007 [NCT01796899]). Adverse events (AEs) of interest were summarized in relevant categories. RESULTS: The safety pool comprised 1957 patients: 1271 receiving adjunctive BRV and 686 receiving placebo. Overall, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was 66.9% with BRV versus 62.8% with placebo. The most frequently reported TEAEs with BRV (≥5% of patients) versus placebo were somnolence (13.3% vs. 7.9%), headache (10.5% vs. 11.5%), dizziness (10.0% vs. 7.0%), and fatigue (8.2% vs. 4.2%). Incidence of psychiatric disorder-related TEAEs was 11.3% with BRV versus 8.2% with placebo. Behavioral disorder-related TEAE incidence was low (4.0% with BRV vs. 2.5% with placebo). Irritability was reported in 2.7% of BRV-treated patients vs. 1.5% of patients receiving placebo; anger, aggression, and agitation were each reported by ≤1% of patients receiving BRV. Treatment-emergent adverse events potentially associated with psychosis were psychotic disorder (three patients on BRV vs. two patients on placebo), auditory hallucination, illusion, visual hallucination (one patient each on BRV), epileptic psychosis, and hallucination (one patient each on placebo). No additional safety concerns were identified in patients with intravenous (IV) BRV administration (n = 104). CONCLUSIONS: These safety data for adjunctive BRV support its acceptable safety and tolerability profile.

Randomized open-label trial of intravenous brivaracetam versus lorazepam for acute treatment of increased seizure activity.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present trial was to assess efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) brivaracetam (BRV) vs. lorazepam (LZP) in patients with epilepsy undergoing evaluation in an epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) who experienced seizures requiring acute treatment. METHODS: This was a phase 2, open-label, randomized, active-control, proof-of-concept trial (EP0087; NCT03021018). Patients (18-70 years) admitted to EMU were randomized 1:1:1 to single-dose bolus IV LZP (dose per investigator's practice), IV BRV 100 mg, or IV BRV 200 mg. Trial medication had to be administered within 30 min of qualifying seizure. Primary efficacy outcome was time to next seizure (clinical observation with electroencephalogram [EEG] confirmation) or to rescue medication use within 12 h of trial medication administration. Secondary outcomes included seizure freedom and rescue medication use within 12 h of trial medication administration. Safety and tolerability outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: Overall, 46 patients were randomized, and 45 received trial medication for a qualifying seizure. Patients in the LZP arm had doses from 1 to 4 mg (median: 1 mg). Eleven of 45 patients had a seizure within 12 h of trial medication administration (LZP 5/15 [median time to next seizure: 5.55 h], BRV 100 mg 3/15 [5.97 h], BRV 200 mg 3/15 [3.60 h]). No patients received additional rescue medication to control their qualifying seizure. Most patients were seizure-free over 12 h (LZP 9/15 [60.0%], BRV 100 mg 12/15 [80.0%], BRV 200 mg 12/15 [80.0%]). Rescue medication use within 12 h was numerically higher for LZP (6/15 [40.0%]) vs. BRV 100 mg (1/15 [6.7%]) and vs. BRV 200 mg (2/15 [13.3%]). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 5/16 (31.3%), 6/15 (40.0%), and 3/15 (20.0%) of LZP, BRV 100 mg, and BRV 200 mg patients; one LZP patient had a serious TEAE (seizure cluster). Most common TEAEs (≥10% of patients) were sedation and somnolence with LZP, and dizziness, headache, and nausea with BRV. SIGNIFICANCE: Intravenous LZP, IV BRV 100 mg, and IV BRV 200 mg showed similar efficacy in controlling acute seizure activity in the EMU. Treatment-emergent adverse events were as expected for each medication. Although this trial should be interpreted with caution because of small patient numbers, it suggests a possible role of BRV in the acute treatment of increased seizure activity.

Use of intravenous brivaracetam in status epilepticus: A multicenter registry.

OBJECTIVE: The pharmacokinetics of brivaracetam (BRV), added to its effectiveness observed in animal models of status epilepticus (SE), makes this drug attractive for use in emergency situations. Our objective was to evaluate the use of intravenous BRV in a multicenter study. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter registry of SE cases treated with BRV was created. These patients were evaluated between January and December 2018 at seven hospitals in Spain. Demographic variables, SE characteristics, concomitant drugs, loading doses, and response to treatment were collected. RESULTS: Forty-three patients were registered. The mean age was 56 ± 23.1 years, 51.2% were male, 29 had previous epilepsy, 24 (55.8%) had prominent motor symptoms, and 19 had nonconvulsive symptoms. Regarding the etiology, 19 (44.2%) were considered acute symptomatic, 16 (17.2%) remote symptomatic, four (9.3%) progressive symptomatic, and four (9.3%) cryptogenic. Regarding concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), 17 had previously received levetiracetam (LEV). In 14 patients, BRV was used early (first or second AED). The median loading dose was 100 mg (range = 50-400), and the weight-adjusted dose was 1.8 mg/kg (range = 0.4-7.3). BRV was effective in 54% (n = 23), and a response was observed in <6 hours in 13 patients. We observed a tendency for it to be more effective when administered earlier (P = 0.09), but there were no differences regarding SE type and the concomitant use of LEV. In those with the fastest responses, we observed that both the total administered dose (300 mg vs 100 mg, P = 0.008) and the weight-adjusted dose (3.85 mg vs 1.43 mg, P = 0.006) were significantly higher. The receiver operating characteristic curve showed that the best cutoff point for a faster response was 1.82 mg/kg. SIGNIFICANCE: BRV is useful for the treatment of SE, even when patients are already being treated with LEV. The response rate seems higher when it is administered earlier and at higher doses (>1.82 mg/kg).

A single-center, open-label positron emission tomography study to evaluate brivaracetam and levetiracetam synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A binding in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: Brivaracetam (BRV) and levetiracetam (LEV) are antiepileptic drugs that bind synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A (SV2A). In vitro and in vivo animal studies suggest faster brain penetration and SV2A occupancy (SO) after dosing with BRV than LEV. We evaluated human brain penetration and SO time course of BRV and LEV at therapeutically relevant doses using the SV2A positron emission tomography (PET) tracer 11 C-UCB-J (EP0074; NCT02602860). METHODS: Healthy volunteers were recruited into three cohorts. Cohort 1 (n = 4) was examined with PET at baseline and during displacement after intravenous BRV (100 mg) or LEV (1500 mg). Cohort 2 (n = 5) was studied during displacement and 4 hours postdose (BRV 50-200 mg or LEV 1500 mg). Cohort 3 (n = 4) was examined at baseline and steady state after 4 days of twice-daily oral dosing of BRV (50-100 mg) and 4 hours postdose of LEV (250-600 mg). Half-time of 11 C-UCB-J signal change was computed from displacement measurements. Half-saturation concentrations (IC50 ) were determined from calculated SO. RESULTS: Observed tracer displacement half-times were 18 ± 6 minutes for BRV (100 mg, n = 4), 9.7 and 10.1 minutes for BRV (200 mg, n = 2), and 28 ± 6 minutes for LEV (1500 mg, n = 6). Estimated corrected half-times were 8 minutes shorter. The SO was 66%-70% for 100 mg intravenous BRV, 84%-85% for 200 mg intravenous BRV, and 78%-84% for intravenous 1500 mg LEV. The IC50 of BRV (0.46 µg/mL) was 8.7-fold lower than of LEV (4.02 µg/mL). BRV data fitted a single SO versus plasma concentration relationship. Steady state SO for 100 mg BRV was 86%-87% (peak) and 76%-82% (trough). SIGNIFICANCE: BRV achieves high SO more rapidly than LEV when intravenously administered at therapeutic doses. Thus, BRV may have utility in treating acute seizures; further clinical studies are needed for confirmation.

Adjunctive brivaracetam in focal and generalized epilepsies: A single-center open-label prospective study in patients with psychiatric comorbidities and intellectual disability.

Clinical studies suggest that the antiepileptic drug (AED) brivaracetam (BRV) is associated with fewer behavioral and psychiatric adverse events (AEs) compared with levetiracetam (LEV) in treating epilepsy. There are, however, few comparative studies of treatment-emergent AEs between patients on BRV with preexisting psychiatric or behavioral comorbidities to those without. Our study compared longer-term tolerability over a 26-month period between these patient groups and assessed the overall efficacy of BRV as add-on therapy. Patients with intellectual disabilities in whom the prevalence of epilepsy is higher, are often excluded from randomized controlled trials, and our study further assessed comparative effectiveness between this patient group and those with normal range intellect. We collected prospective data on 134 patients prescribed add-on BRV for epilepsy at a tertiary UK center over a 26-month period. All patients had previously received LEV. Sixty-three patients were on LEV at the start of the data collection period. Levetiracetam was withdrawn and switched to BRV in 39 patients because of inefficacy and 24 patients because of behavioral or psychiatric side effects. Seventy-three patients (54%) had a preexisting psychiatric or behavioral disorder compared with 64 patients (46%) without. The retention rate at last follow-up [mean: 11 months (0.5-26 months)] was 60% in the psychiatric/behavioral disorders group versus 67% in those without (p = 0.68). Forty-one patients had diagnosed intellectual disabilities. The retention rate was 66% in this group versus 62% in patients without intellectual disabilities (p = 0.36). The commonest treatment-emergent AEs were somnolence (26%), aggression (23%), and depression (9%). There were similar frequencies reported for these specific events across the groups. The proportion with a 50% responder rate was 29% in patients with focal epilepsy and 47% in patients with generalized and combined focal and generalized epilepsies. However, fifteen patients (11%) reported increased seizure activity leading to withdrawal of treatment. This study showed evidence that BRV may be an effective adjunctive therapy in patients with drug-resistant focal or generalized epilepsies whose seizures have previously not responded or tolerated LEV therapy. We demonstrated a higher incidence of treatment-emergent AEs leading to lower retention rates compared with previous studies across all patient groups. There were, however, no significant differences in tolerability between patients with preexisting psychiatric or behavioral comorbidities, or intellectual disability to those without.

Brivaracetam for epilepsy.

More than a third of patients with epilepsy cannot achieve freedom from seizures despite taking multiple medications. This article compares brivaracetam to levetiracetam, and provides guidelines for the safe and effective use of brivaracetam.

Tivantinib for second-line treatment of MET-high, advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (METIV-HCC): a final analysis of a phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Tivantinib (ARQ 197), a selective, oral MET inhibitor, improved overall survival and progression-free survival compared with placebo in a randomised phase 2 study in patients with high MET expression (MET-high) hepatocellular carcinoma previously treated with sorafenib. The aim of this phase 3 study was to confirm the results of the phase 2 trial. METHODS: We did a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 90 centres in Australia, the Americas, Europe, and New Zealand. Eligible patients were 18 years or older and had unresectable, histologically confirmed, hepatocellular carcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, high MET expression (MET-high; staining intensity score ≥2 in ≥50% of tumour cells), Child-Pugh A cirrhosis, and radiographically-confirmed disease progression after receiving sorafenib-containing systemic therapy. We randomly assigned patients (2:1) in block sizes of three using a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive oral tivantinib (120 mg twice daily) or placebo (twice daily); patients were stratified by vascular invasion, extrahepatic spread, and α-fetoprotein concentrations (≤200 ng/mL or >200 ng/mL). The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat and safety analyses were done in all patients who received any amount of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01755767. FINDINGS: Between Dec 27, 2012, and Dec 10, 2015, 340 patients were randomly assigned to receive tivantinib (n=226) or placebo (n=114). At a median follow-up of 18·1 months (IQR 14·1-23·1), median overall survival was 8·4 months (95% CI 6·8-10·0) in the tivantinib group and 9·1 months (7·3-10·4) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·97; 95% CI 0·75-1·25; p=0·81). Grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 125 (56%) of 225 patients in the tivantinib group and in 63 (55%) of 114 patients in the placebo group, with the most common being ascites (16 [7%] patients]), anaemia (11 [5%] patients), abdominal pain (nine [4%] patients), and neutropenia (nine [4%] patients) in the tivantinib group. 50 (22%) of 226 patients in the tivantinib group and 18 (16%) of 114 patients in the placebo group died within 30 days of the last dose of study medication, and general deterioration (eight [4%] patients) and hepatic failure (four [2%] patients) were the most common causes of death in the tivantinib group. Three (1%) of 225 patients in the tivantinib group died from a treatment-related adverse event (one sepsis, one anaemia and acute renal failure, and one acute coronary syndrome). INTERPRETATION: Tivantinib did not improve overall survival compared with placebo in patients with MET-high advanced hepatocellular carcinoma previously treated with sorafenib. Although this METIV-HCC trial was negative, the study shows the feasibility of doing integral tissue biomarker studies in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Additional randomised studies are needed to establish whether MET inhibition could be a potential therapy for some subsets of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. FUNDING: ArQule Inc and Daiichi Sankyo (Daiichi Sankyo Group).

Intravenous brivaracetam in status epilepticus: A retrospective single-center study.

Brivaracetam (BRV) is a high-affinity synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A ligand that is structurally related to levetiracetam (LEV). Compared to LEV, its affinity to the ligand is >10%-30% higher. Due to its more lipophilic characteristics, it might have a quicker penetration across the blood-brain barrier and potentially also a stronger anticonvulsant effect. Thus, we aimed to explore its usefulness in the treatment of status epilepticus (SE). We retrospectively assessed treatment response and adverse events in adjunctive treatment with intravenous BRV in patients with SE from January 2016 to July 2017 at our institution. Seven patients aged median 68 years (range = 29-79) were treated with intravenous BRV. Three patients had SE with coma and four without. SE arose de novo in two patients; etiology was remote symptomatic in four patients and progressive symptomatic in one patient. The most frequent etiology was remote vascular in two patients. BRV was administered after median four antiepileptic drugs (range = 2-11). Time of treatment initiation ranged from 0.5 hours to 105 days (median = 10.5 hours). Immediate clinical and electrophysiological improvement was observed in two patients (29%). Median loading dose was 100 mg intravenously over 15 minutes (range = 50-200 mg), titrated up to a median dose of 100 mg/d (range = 100-300). Median Glasgow Outcome Scale score was 3 (range = 3-5), with an improvement in 86% of patients compared to admission. We observed no adverse events regarding cardiorespiratory function. BRV might have potential as a novel antiepileptic drug in early stages of SE. Its potential may lie its ability to cross the blood-brain barrier more quickly than LEV and its favorable safety profile. Prospective studies for the use of BRV in SE are required.

Use of brivaracetam in genetic generalized epilepsies and for acute, intravenous treatment of absence status epilepticus.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate effectiveness, retention, and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in genetic generalized epilepsies (GGE) in clinical practice. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study recruiting all patients that started BRV in 2016 and 2017. RESULTS: A total of 61 patients (mean age = 29.8, range = 9-90 years, 41 female [67%]) were treated with BRV. They were difficult to control, with 2.4 failed antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in the past, taking 1.9 AEDs on average at baseline. The length of exposure to BRV ranged from 7 days to 24 months, with a mean retention time of 7.9 months, resulting in a total exposure time to BRV of 483 months. The retention rate was 82% at 3 months and 69% at 6 months. Efficacy at 3 months was 36% (50% responder rate), with 25% seizure-free for 3 months. Patients with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy showed a responder rate of 60%, with 40% being free of any seizures. Long-term 50% responder rate was present in 17 patients (28%; 11 seizure-free [18%]) for >6 months and in 14 patients (23%; 10 seizure-free [16%]) for >12 months. Treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 26% of the patients, with the most common being somnolence, ataxia, and psychobehavioral adverse events. Use of intravenous BRV with bolus injection of 200-300 mg in two females with absence status epilepticus was well tolerated, but did not result in cessation of status epilepticus. SIGNIFICANCE: Use of BRV in GGE is well tolerated, and 50% responder rates are similar to those observed in the regulatory trials for focal epilepsies. An immediate switch from levetiracetam (LEV) to BRV at a ratio of 15:1 is feasible. The occurrence of psychobehavioral adverse events seems less prominent than under LEV, and a switch to BRV can be considered in patients with LEV-induced adverse events.

Human abuse potential of brivaracetam in healthy recreational central nervous system depressant users.

BACKGROUND: Brivaracetam is a new antiepileptic drug indicated for adjunctive treatment of focal seizures in adults at a dose of 50-200mg/day taken in two equal doses. The objective of this study was to evaluate the abuse potential of brivaracetam compared with alprazolam (positive control), placebo, and levetiracetam. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, triple-dummy, crossover study in healthy male and female recreational central nervous system (CNS) depressant users aged 18-55years, who could distinguish between the subjective effects of alprazolam 2mg and placebo. All participants received single doses of brivaracetam (50 [therapeutic dose], 200, 1000mg [supratherapeutic doses]), alprazolam (1.5, 3mg), placebo, and levetiracetam (4000mg) in random order each separated by 7-10days. Subjective Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) and Addiction Research Center Inventory (ARCI) scales were completed at intervals up to 24h postdose. Primary endpoints were Drug Liking (at this moment) VAS, Overall Drug Liking VAS, Feeling High VAS, and ARCI Pentobarbital Chlorpromazine Alcohol Group (PCAG, sedation) maximum effect (Emax). Maximum effect values on each scale were analyzed using a mixed-effect model (per protocol population, N=44). RESULTS: The maximum effect for both alprazolam doses was significantly greater versus placebo for six designated endpoints, confirming study validity. Drug Liking (at this moment) VAS Emax was significantly lower for brivaracetam 50mg than alprazolam (both doses); there were no significant differences between brivaracetam 200mg and alprazolam (both doses), and brivaracetam 1000mg and alprazolam 1.5mg. Brivaracetam 1000mg (supratherapeutic single dose) had significantly higher Drug Liking (at this moment) VAS Emax than alprazolam 3mg. Overall, Drug Liking VAS Emax for brivaracetam 50 and 200mg was not significantly different from alprazolam (both doses). Brivaracetam 1000mg had significantly higher Overall Drug Liking VAS Emax than alprazolam 1.5mg, but was not significantly different from alprazolam 3mg. Feeling High VAS Emax was lower versus alprazolam with brivaracetam 50 and 200mg, while brivaracetam 1000mg was comparable with alprazolam (both doses). Addiction Research Center Inventory PCAG Emax for brivaracetam (all doses) was significantly lower than alprazolam (both doses). On the secondary/supportive endpoints, compared with alprazolam, brivaracetam had fewer positive effects (ARCI Morphine Benzedrine Group [euphoria]; Good Drug Effects VAS [50mg]) and fewer negative effects (Bad Drug Effects VAS; ARCI Lysergic Acid Diethylamide [dysphoria]). Brivaracetam was not significantly different from alprazolam for Take Drug Again VAS (50, 200mg). For most endpoints, brivaracetam (50-200mg) was not significantly different from levetiracetam (4000mg). CONCLUSION: This study in healthy recreational CNS depressant users showed that single doses of brivaracetam 50mg (therapeutic single dose) had lower sedative, positive, and negative drug effects than alprazolam, while brivaracetam 200 and 1000mg (supratherapeutic single doses) were more similar to alprazolam. The subjective profile of brivaracetam appeared to be similar to that of levetiracetam, but further evaluation using a range of levetiracetam doses would be needed to confirm similar abuse potential.