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.

Effect of drug treatment changes and seizure outcomes on depression and suicidality in adults with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate changes in depressive and suicidality status and their relationship with seizure outcomes after the addition or substitution of another antiseizure medication (ASM) in adults with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. METHODS: Seven hundred seventy consecutively enrolled patients were assessed and followed prospectively for seizure outcome and depressive status over a 6-month period after starting treatment with a newly introduced ASM. The Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory for Epilepsy (NDDIE) was used to screen for depression and suicidality. Correlations of NDDIE results with clinical and treatment-related variables were assessed by using a stepwise logistic regression model. RESULTS: At baseline, 50% of patients had a positive screening test result for depression and 13% had a positive screening test result for suicidal ideation. A psychiatric comorbidity at baseline was associated with a 2.3 times increased risk of an initially negative NDDIE screening result becoming positive at re-assessment after 6 months. In addition, the number of ASMs taken at baseline correlated with an increased risk of a change in depression screening test results from negative to positive during follow-up, whereas no association was identified with sociodemographic and epilepsy-related variables, including seizure outcomes. Approximately 6% of patients who were initially negative at screening for suicidal ideation became positive at the 6-month re-assessment. The risk of switch from a negative to a positive screening test result for suicidal ideation was increased more than two-fold in individuals who screened positive for depression at baseline, and was unrelated to the type of ASM introduced, sociodemographic variables, or seizure outcomes. SIGNIFICANCE: Almost 1 in 5 adults with drug-resistant focal epilepsy who screen negative for depression become positive when re-assessed 6 months after a treatment change. At re-assessment 6 months later, 6.1% who screen initially negative for passive suicidal ideation become positive. These changes in screening status are independent of type of ASM introduced or seizure outcomes but correlate with psychiatric status at baseline.

Cost of epilepsy-related health care encounters in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The cost of epilepsy is usually reported as total expenditure over a certain period. However, with the increased availability of acute treatments for use in the community setting, intermittent, single-seizure treatment is now possible in addition to the chronic epilepsy drug treatment paradigm. Data on the cost of discrete health care encounters are needed to substantiate the cost-benefit of these new treatments. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the health plan-paid costs of discrete epilepsy-related health care encounters in patients with epilepsy. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilized IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims, Medicare Supplemental and Coordination of Benefits (Medicare patients with supplemental insurance), and Multi-State Medicaid research databases. The primary analysis determined health plan-paid cost (adjudicated claims) of discrete epilepsy-related health care encounters, defined as having a primary diagnosis code of epilepsy or convulsion, from 2013 to 2018, in patients with epilepsy aged ≥ 12 years. Costs were adjusted to 2018 prices. Epilepsy cases were defined using ICD-CM codes. We excluded patients on capitated insurance plans as their cost per health care encounter is unknown. RESULTS: In total, 353,530 commercially insured, 378,051 Medicaid, and 69,176 Medicare plus supplemental insurance patients with epilepsy were included. More than 160,000 epilepsy-related emergency transportations, 225,000 emergency department (ED) visits, 49,000 hospitalizations, 700 urgent care visits, and ~2.5 million office visits were analyzed. 37.4% of epilepsy-related hospitalizations included care in the intensive care unit (ICU). In commercially insured patients, epilepsy-related health care encounters had median health plan-paid costs of $22,305 (Q1-Q3 = $14,336-$36,096, hospitalization); $3,375 ($565-$9,095, ICU visit); $1,913 ($417-$4,163, ED visit); $687 ($415-$1,083, emergency transportation); $95 ($23-$232, office visit); and $57 ($0-$171, urgent care visit). The median length of stay for epilepsy-related hospitalizations in working age, commercially insured patients was 4 (Q1-Q3 = 2-5) days. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to report health plan-paid cost per epilepsy-related health care encounter. These data can serve as a basis for more granular cost-benefit analyses of not only chronic but also acute treatments of epilepsy. DISCLOSURES: This analysis was funded by UCB Pharma. The sponsor had a role in the identification, design, conduct, and reporting of the analysis. Borghs, Beaty, Boudiaf, and Loewendorf are employees of UCB Pharma. Kalilani and Parekh were employees of UCB Pharma at the time of the analysis. Borghs, Beaty, and Loewendorf have received UCB Pharma stock from their employment. Kalilani and Parekh had received UCB Pharma stock at the time of employment, but no longer hold any. This work was presented in part as a poster at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the American Epilepsy Society; December 7, 2019; Baltimore, MD.

Understanding the challenge of comparative effectiveness research in focal epilepsy: A review of network meta-analyses and real-world evidence on antiepileptic drugs.

OBJECTIVE: Head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for assessing comparative treatment effects. In the absence of direct comparisons between all possible antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), however, clinical decision-making in focal (partial onset) epilepsy relies on alternative evidence borne from indirect comparisons including network meta-analyses (NMAs) and from real-world evidence (RWE) studies. We review NMAs and observational RWE studies comparing AEDs in the adjunctive setting to compare the robustness of these methods and to formulate recommendations for future evidence development. METHODS: A literature review identified NMAs and RWE studies comparing AEDs for the adjunctive treatment of focal seizures published between January 2008 and October 2018. NMAs were evaluated for robustness using a framework based on guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. RWE studies were evaluated using the GRACE checklist. RESULTS: From a total of 1993 records, 11 NMAs and six RWE studies were eligible. Key limitations identified in the NMAs include nonsystematic selection of RCTs, unexplored heterogeneity between included RCTs in terms of study and patient characteristics, and selection of AEDs and AED doses or dosing strategies that are not reflective of clinical practice. The main limitations of RWE studies concern sample size, design, and analysis methods. Approximately 90% of comparisons between individual AEDs were nonsignificant in the NMAs. None of the RWE studies adjusted for baseline differences between comparator groups; therefore, they lack the validity to make comparative conclusions. SIGNIFICANCE: Current NMAs and RWE studies provide only nominal comparative evidence for AED treatments in focal epilepsy, and should be used with caution for decision-making due to their methodological limitations. To overcome these hurdles, adherence to methodological guidelines and concerted efforts to collect relevant outcome data in the real world are needed.

Long-term safety, efficacy, and quality of life outcomes with adjunctive brivaracetam treatment at individualized doses in patients with epilepsy: An up to 11-year, open-label, follow-up trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term safety/tolerability of brivaracetam at individualized doses ≤200 mg/d (primary) and maintenance of efficacy over time (secondary) in adults with focal seizures or primary generalized seizures (PGS) enrolled in phase 3, open-label, long-term follow-up trial N01199 (NCT00150800). METHODS: Patients ≥16 years of age who had completed double-blind, placebo-controlled adjunctive brivaracetam trials NCT00175825, NCT00490035, NCT00464269, or NCT00504881 were eligible. Outcomes included safety, efficacy, and quality of life. RESULTS: The safety set included 667 patients (focal seizures, 97.8%; PGS, 2.2%); the efficacy set included 648 patients with focal seizures and 15 patients with PGS. Overall, 49.2% of patients had ≥48 months of exposure. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 91.2% of all patients (91.3% of focal seizures group), brivaracetam discontinuation due to TEAEs in 14.8%, drug-related TEAEs in 56.7%, and serious TEAEs in 22.8%. The most common TEAEs in the focal seizures group (≥15%) were headache (25.3%) and dizziness (21.9%). Mean changes from baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores at last value during 2-year evaluation were -0.7 (standard deviation [SD] = 4.3) and -0.2 (SD = 4.4) overall. In the focal seizures group, median reduction from baseline in focal seizure frequency/28 days was 57.3%, 50% responder rate was 55.6%, and 6-month and 12-month seizure freedom rates were 30.3% and 20.3%, respectively. Efficacy outcomes improved by exposure duration cohort and then stabilized through the 108-month cohort. Mean improvement from baseline in Patient-Weighted Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory total score (efficacy set) was 5.7 (SD = 16.1, Cohen's d = 0.35) at month 12 and 6.5 (SD = 18.0, Cohen's d = 0.36) at month 24. SIGNIFICANCE: Adjunctive brivaracetam was well tolerated, with a good safety profile in long-term use in adults with epilepsy at individualized doses. Approximately half of the patients remained in the trial at 4 years. Brivaracetam reduced focal seizure frequency versus baseline. Efficacy improved with increasing exposure duration and remained stable through the 9-year cohort.

Comparing healthcare cost associated with the use of enzyme-inducing and non-enzyme active antiepileptic drugs in elderly patients with epilepsy in the UK: a long-term retrospective, matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In elderly patients (≥65 years of age) with epilepsy who take medications for comorbid conditions, some antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) may alter the metabolism of other treatments and increase the risk of adverse consequences and healthcare utilisation. This analysis compares healthcare costs associated with enzyme-inducing AEDs (EIAEDs) and non-enzyme active AEDs (nEAAEDs) use in elderly patients with epilepsy. METHODS: This retrospective matched cohort study used the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) of UK primary care medical records, linked to the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database. Selected patients with epilepsy were ≥ 65 years and prescribed an EIAED or nEAAED between 2001 and 2010 (index) after ≥1 year without AEDs (baseline) and followed until the first occurrence of the following: end of HES data coverage, end of GP registration, or death; practice's up-to-standard status or addition of an AED belonging to another cohort or discontinuation of the last AED of that cohort. Propensity score matching reduced confounding factor effects between cohorts. Key outcomes included time to cohort treatment failure, time to index AED treatment failure, and direct healthcare costs in 2014 Pound Sterling (£) values. RESULTS: Overall, 1425 elderly patients were included: 964 with EIAEDs and 461 with nEAAEDs. At baseline, the EIAED cohort was older (mean age, 76.2 vs. 75.1 years) and a higher proportion were male. Baseline direct healthcare costs were similar. After matching (n = 210 each), and over the entire follow-up period, median monthly direct healthcare costs were higher for patients taking EIAEDs than nEAAEDs (£403 vs. £317; p = 0.0150, Mann-Whitney U). Costs were higher for patients remaining in the EIAED cohort after 3 follow-up years. The median time to cohort treatment failure for the EIAED cohort was 1110 days vs. 1175 days for the nEAAED cohort. CONCLUSION: Newly treated elderly patients with epilepsy were more likely to be prescribed EIAEDs than nEAAEDs. In matched cohorts, elderly patients with epilepsy treated with EIAEDs had higher average total direct and epilepsy-related healthcare costs than nEAAED-treated patients; this difference was greater than previously reported in the overall adult population. Changing treatment practices could improve patient care and reduce costs.

Trends in antiepileptic drug treatment and effectiveness in clinical practice in England from 2003 to 2016: a retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the evolution of antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment patterns and seizure outcomes in England from 2003 to 2016. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of electronic medical records from Clinical Practice Research Datalink and National Health Service Digital Hospital Episode Statistics databases. Patients newly diagnosed with epilepsy were identified and followed until end of data availability. Three eras were defined starting 1 April 2003 (first National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline); 1 September 2007 (Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs publication); and 1 January 2012 (second NICE guideline). OUTCOME MEASURES: Time from diagnosis to first AED; AED sequence; time from first AED to first 1-year remission period (no new AED attempts and no seizure-related healthcare events); time from first AED to refractoriness (third AED attempt regardless of reason); Kaplan-Meier analysis of time-to-event variables. RESULTS: 4388 patients were included (mean follow-up: 6.8, 4.2 and 1.7 years by era). 84.6% of adults (≥16 years), 75.5% of children (<16) and 89.1% of elderly subgroup (65+) received treatment within 1 year; rates were generally stable over time. Treatment trends included reduced use of carbamazepine (adult first line, era 1: 34.9%; era 3: 10.7%) and phenytoin, earlier line and increased use of levetiracetam (adult first line, era 1: 2.6%; era 3: 26.2%) and lamotrigine (particularly in adults and elderly subgroup), and a larger number of different AEDs used. Valproate use shifted somewhat to later lines. Rates of 1-year remission within 2 years of starting treatment increased in adults (era 1: 71.9%; era 3: 81.4%) and elderly (era 1: 76.1%; era 3: 81.7%). Overall, 55.5% of patients relapsed after achieving 1-year remission. Refractoriness rates remained stable over time (~26% of adults within 5 years). CONCLUSION: Treatment trends often were not aligned with era-relevant guidance. However, our results suggest a slight improvement in epilepsy treatment outcomes over the 13-year period.

Efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive lacosamide in pediatric patients with focal seizures.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive lacosamide in children and adolescents with uncontrolled focal (partial-onset) seizures. METHODS: In this double-blind trial (SP0969; NCT01921205), patients (age ≥4-<17 years) with uncontrolled focal seizures were randomized (1:1) to adjunctive lacosamide/placebo. After a 6-week titration, patients who reached the target dose range for their weight (<30 kg: 8-12 mg/kg/d oral solution; ≥30-<50 kg: 6-8 mg/kg/d oral solution; ≥50 kg: 300-400 mg/d tablets) entered a 10-week maintenance period. The primary outcome was change in focal seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline to maintenance. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-three patients were randomized; 306 (lacosamide 152 of 171 [88.9%]; placebo 154 of 172 [89.5%]) completed treatment (titration and maintenance). Adverse events (AEs) were the most common reasons for discontinuation during treatment (lacosamide 4.1%; placebo 5.8%). From baseline to maintenance, percent reduction in focal seizure frequency per 28 days for lacosamide (n = 170) vs placebo (n = 168) was 31.7% (p = 0.0003). During maintenance, median percent reduction in focal seizure frequency per 28 days was 51.7% for lacosamide and 21.7% for placebo. Fifty percent responder rates (≥50% reduction) were 52.9% and 33.3% (odds ratio 2.17, p = 0.0006). During treatment, treatment-emergent AEs were reported by 67.8% lacosamide-treated patients (placebo 58.1%), most commonly (≥10%) somnolence (14.0%, placebo 5.2%) and dizziness (10.5%, placebo 3.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive lacosamide was efficacious in reducing seizure frequency and generally well tolerated in patients (age ≥4-<17 years) with focal seizures. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01921205. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This trial provides Class I evidence that for children and adolescents with uncontrolled focal seizures, adjunctive lacosamide reduces seizure frequency.

Relative performance of brivaracetam as adjunctive treatment of focal seizures in adults: a network meta-analysis.

Objective: To estimate the relative efficacy, safety and tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam and other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) approach. Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) identified randomized controlled trials of AEDs treating focal (partial-onset) seizures for ≥8 weeks and assessed them for inclusion in the NMA. Bayesian random-effects NMA was performed for several outcomes. All interventions within the licensed dose range were included in the network of evidence. Results: The SLR identified 82 studies; 65 were included in the NMA. These studies had baseline mean age 33.1-38.0 years, mean duration of epilepsy 18.7-23.0 years and median seizure frequency/28 days 8.1-11.8. All AEDs had significantly higher odds than placebo of achieving ≥50% responder rates (odds ratios 1.83-3.58) and all AEDs had a trend of higher odds than placebo of achieving seizure freedom (odds ratios 1.36-5.73), most being statistically significant. Tolerability outcomes were comparable between AEDs; most AEDs had higher odds than placebo of treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation, serious AEs, nausea, fatigue, dizziness and somnolence. Conclusions: This NMA would appear to show relative equivalence in efficacy, safety and tolerability outcomes of the included AEDs. However, patient heterogeneity within trials and in clinical practice should be considered when interpreting these results. While NMAs are based on the best available evidence the authors suggest that, due to the inability of NMAs to capture unmeasured confounding factors and population heterogeneity, NMAs must not be the sole basis for comparative treatment recommendations.

Long-term retention rates for antiepileptic drugs: A review of long-term extension studies and comparison with brivaracetam.

Antiepileptic drug (AED) retention rates are frequently reported in the literature and used to inform clinical decision-making, but methodological differences in the determination of retention rates make comparisons between trials difficult. Open-label extension (OLE) studies of AEDs in patients with focal epilepsy were identified from the literature. Retention calculation methods were reviewed, and published AED retention rates qualitatively compared with corresponding data for brivaracetam (BRV), a synaptic vesicle protein 2A ligand. The search identified 40 publications (corresponding to 17 studies of nine AEDs: eslicarbazepine, gabapentin, lacosamide, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, perampanel, pregabalin, topiramate and zonisamide) meeting eligibility criteria for inclusion in the review. Three methodologies to estimate retention rate were identified, which differed in whether patients randomised to placebo in the preceding randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included or analysed separately, and whether retention was measured from the start of the OLE or of active treatment exposure. The most robust, conservative approach included all patients and measured retention from start of active treatment exposure, whether during the blinded RCT or at the start of the OLE (placebo RCT patients). Data using this method was available for five AEDs in this review, including BRV. The corresponding BRV 52week retention rate (modal doses 50-200mg/day; therapeutic range) was 69.8% (63.3-66.7% for other AEDs at this time point). No statistical indirect comparison was performed, as study populations were clinically heterogeneous. To avoid inconsistencies in methodologies, and allow comparison between AEDs when OLE data are the only long-term data available, retention rate analyses would benefit from the development of consistent reporting standards and guidelines.

Can Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Methods Mitigate Placebo Response Differences Among Patient Populations in Adjunctive Trials of Brivaracetam and Levetiracetam?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Patients with focal seizures recruited into adjunctive antiepileptic drug (AED) trials have become more refractory and severe over time; concurrently, placebo responses have increased. To attempt to account for heterogeneity among trials, propensity-score weighted patient-level data were used to indirectly compare placebo responses reported in brivaracetam and levetiracetam trials. METHODS: Patient-level data from randomised, placebo-controlled brivaracetam (recruited 2007-2014) and levetiracetam (1993-1998) trials were pooled. Consistent inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied and outcomes were defined consistently. Potentially confounding baseline characteristics were adjusted for using propensity score weighting. Weighting success was assessed using placebo response. RESULTS: In total, 707 and 473 active drug and 399 and 253 placebo patients comprised the brivaracetam and levetiracetam groups, respectively. Before weighting, several baseline variables were significantly different between groups; after weighting, prior vagal nerve stimulation, co-morbid depression and co-morbid anxiety remained different. Before weighting, median seizure frequency reduction was 21.7 and 3.9% in the brivaracetam and levetiracetam placebo arms, respectively; after weighting, median reduction was 15.0 and 6.0%. The comparison of non-randomised groups could be biased by unobserved confounding factors and region of residence. Lifetime AED history was unavailable in the brivaracetam trials and excluded from analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Placebo responses remained different between brivaracetam and levetiracetam trials after propensity score weighting, indicating the presence of residual confounding factors associated with placebo response in these trials. It therefore remains problematic to conduct reliable indirect comparisons of brivaracetam and levetiracetam given the current evidence base, which may apply to comparisons between other AED trials.

Real life pharmaceutical treatment patterns for adult patients with focal epilepsy in Germany: a longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of recently approved anti-epileptic drugs.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment of adults suffering from focal epilepsies (FE) in Germany. Of special interest was the number and percentage of the patients 16 years and older receiving no treatment with an AED, treatment with one AED (monotherapy), treatment with more than one AED, and treatment with a novel AED. The definition for "novel" was newly approved at the time of market entry since 2006 (last 10 years): eslicarbazepine (ESL), lacosamide (LCM), perampanel (PER), and retigabine (RTG). Methods: The analysis was based on a claims data set covering the years 2007 to 2014, provided by AOK PLUS, a German statutory health insurance. Two patient samples were defined: (1) prevalent patients suffering from FE (at least one in- or outpatient diagnosis of FE and at least one prescription of an AED), and (2) incident FE patients (first in- or outpatient diagnosis of FE without any previous diagnoses/AED prescriptions in the preceding 6 months). Patient observation started at date of first observed inpatient or outpatient focal epilepsy diagnosis within the analyzed period. Each patient was classified as a "no AED therapy", "AED monotherapy" or "more than one AED therapy". Patients were analyzed by number and type of concomitantly prescribed AEDs in yearly tranches (no, one, two, three, four, more than four AEDs; novel versus non-novel AEDs). Results: A total of 34,422 patients diagnosed with FE aged 16 year or older (mean age 59.6 years, 48.7% female) were identified. The mean follow-up period was 1,891 days (5.2 years) since first confirmed diagnosis. The percentage of prevalent patients diagnosed with FE who received one AED (monotherapy) was stable overall and ranged between a minimum of 66.2% (2007) and a maximum of 68.9% (2010). The percentage of patients who received two AEDs ranged from 23.6% (2012) to 25.8% (2007). The remaining patients received therapies with three (6.0% in 2010 to 6.7% in 2007), four (1.0% in 2010 to 1.2% in 2009) or more than four AEDs (0.1% in 2014 to 0.3% in 2013). Between 8.1%-16.6% (2007; 2014) of the patients received no AED therapy in the observed period. In the first year after the diagnosis of FE (incident patients), 9.7% of patients didn't receive any AED therapy. Of those treated with at least one AED, 80.0% received one AED (monotherapy) only, 17.0% received therapy with two AEDs, 2.6% with three AEDs, 0.3% with four AEDs, and 0.1% with >4 AEDs during the respective observation time window and remained stable throughout the four-year follow-up period. Of prevalent patients with a diagnosis of FE, 1,889 (5.5%) received at least one prescription of a novel AED during the observation period; 98.6% of these patients received the novel AED in combination with at least one other AED. Of those patients, 269 (14.2%) received >1 novel AED. The analysis of the patients receiving novel AEDs by the time from the first confirmed diagnosis of FE until the prescription of a novel AED resulted in a mean duration of 4.0 years (SD 2.0) for ESL, 3.6 years (SD 2.2) for LCM, 5.7 years (SD 1.2) for PER, and 4.6 years (SD 0.8 years) for RTG. The mean number of AEDs prescribed before the novel AEDs were 3.2 for ESL, 2.4 for LCM, 5.0 for PER and 5.2 for RTG. Conclusions: Most patients aged 16 years or older, suffering from focal seizures, received AED monotherapy. Novel AEDs were prescribed in a small proportion of patients (<6%) and relatively late in the treatment course. These results are consistent with the recommendations of the German Society for Epileptology (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Epileptologie, DGfE) which suggests a number of monotherapy options - these options do not include the novel AEDs described in this study.

Comparing Generic and Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures in Epilepsy: EQ-5D-3L and NEWQOL-6D.

BACKGROUND: There is debate about the psychometric characteristics of the three-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) for use in epilepsy. In response to the concerns, an epilepsy-specific preference-based measure (NEWQOL-6D) was developed. The psychometric characteristics of the NEWQOL-6D, however, have not been assessed. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L and the Quality of Life in Newly Diagnosed Epilepsy Instrument-six dimensions (NEWQOL-6D) for use in the assessment of treatments for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. METHODS: The analysis used data from the Standard And New Antiepileptic Drugs trial including patients with focal epilepsy. We assessed convergent validity using correlations, and known-group validity across different epilepsy and general health severity indicators using analysis of variance and effect sizes. The responsiveness of the measures to change over time was assessed using standardized response means. We also assessed agreement between the measures. RESULTS: There was some level of convergence and agreement between the measures in terms of utility score but divergence in the concepts measured by the descriptive systems. Both instruments displayed known-group validity, with significant differences between severity groups, and generally slightly larger effect sizes for the NEWQOL-6D across the epilepsy-specific indicators. Evidence for responsiveness was less clear, with small to moderate standardized response means demonstrating different levels of change across different indicators. CONCLUSIONS: There was an overall tendency for the NEWQOL-6D to better reflect differences across groups, but this does not translate into large absolute utility differences. Both the EQ-5D-3L and the NEWQOL-6D show some evidence of validity for providing utility values for economic evaluations in newly diagnosed focal epilepsy.

Health care cost associated with the use of enzyme-inducing and non-enzyme-active antiepileptic drugs in the UK: a long-term retrospective matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Some antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) induce expression of hepatic enzymes. This can contribute to comorbidities via interference with metabolic pathways and concomitant drug metabolization, thereby increasing the likelihood of health care interventions. Using medical records, we compared the direct health care cost in patients initiating epilepsy therapy with enzyme-inducing AEDs (EIAEDs) vs non-enzyme-active AEDs (nEAAEDs) over up to 12 years. METHODS: Patients with untreated epilepsy were indexed in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics database when prescribed a new EIAED or nEAAED between January 2001 and December 2010. Propensity score matching reduced confounding factors between cohorts. Patients were followed until cohort treatment failure or data cut-off. The primary outcome was the median standardized monthly direct health care cost during follow-up in 2014 £GBP, calculated using published reference costs and compared using a Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: The unmatched EIAED cohort (n = 2752) was older (54 vs 46 years), more likely to be male, had more comorbidities, and higher health care resource use/cost during the 1-year pre-index period (median £3014 vs £2516) than the nEAAED cohort (n = 2,137). The most common index EIAED and nEAAED were carbamazepine (63.3%) and lamotrigine (58.0%), respectively. After matching, cohorts had similar features (n = 951 each). Over up to 12 years of follow-up, the median standardized monthly direct health care cost was £229 for the EIAED and £188 for the nEAAED cohorts (p = 0.0091). The median cost was higher for the EIAED cohort in every year of follow-up. In the two cohorts, 25.1% and 20.1% of total mean cost during follow-up was epilepsy-related, with approximately 4.6% and 3.0% for AED acquisition, respectively. The median time to cohort treatment failure was shorter in the matched EIAED cohort (468 vs 1194 days). CONCLUSIONS: Patients in the UK who initiated epilepsy therapy with an EIAED appeared to be at higher risk of complications associated with enzyme induction. In long-term matched cohort analyses, the median total direct health care cost associated with EIAED therapy was higher than with nEAAEDs. Changing current treatment practices could potentially improve patient outcomes and reduce costs.

Health-related quality of life in double-blind Phase III studies of brivaracetam as adjunctive therapy of focal seizures: A pooled, post-hoc analysis.

PURPOSE: The effect of adjunctive brivaracetam on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed in a post-hoc analysis using pooled data from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III studies in patients with refractory focal seizures (NCT00490035, NCT00464269, and NCT01261325). METHODS: The Patient-Weighted Quality of Life in Epilepsy Questionnaire (QOLIE-31-P) was completed at randomization, and weeks 4, 8 (in two of three studies), and 12 (end of the treatment period). Mean change from baseline to week 12 or early discontinuation, and percentage of patients with clinically meaningful improvement were reported for the placebo and brivaracetam 50, 100, and 200mg/day groups. RESULTS: At baseline, mean QOLIE-31-P scores were similar between treatment groups. At week 12 or early discontinuation, mean (standard deviation) changes from baseline in QOLIE-31-P total score were 2.8 (12.7), 3.0 (14.0), 2.4 (14.0), and 3.0 (12.1) points for the placebo and brivaracetam 50, 100, and 200mg/day groups, respectively, indicating HRQoL improved slightly over time during the treatment period, but was similar for placebo and brivaracetam groups. All subscale score changes were positive, indicating stable or improved HRQoL over time. The brivaracetam 100 and 200mg/day groups showed the largest differences compared with placebo in Seizure Worry subscale scores (7.3 and 8.8 vs. 5.0 points). Approximately 40% of patients had improvements in QOLIE-31-P scores beyond the Minimal Important Change (MIC) thresholds. The subgroup of ≥50% focal seizure frequency responders had higher improvements for all treatment arms and all subscales than for those in the overall pooled population. CONCLUSION: In this post-hoc analysis, adjunctive brivaracetam treatment was shown to be associated with stable or improving overall HRQoL over time, similar to placebo, with modest improvements in subscales sensitive to efficacy, and no deterioration in subscales sensitive to tolerability. These results reflect the known efficacy and tolerability profile of brivaracetam.

Sensitivity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L in patients with uncontrolled focal seizures: an analysis of Phase III trials of adjunctive brivaracetam.

PURPOSE: Preference-based measures are required to measure the impact of interventions for cost-effectiveness analysis. This study assessed the psychometric performance of the EQ-5D-3L in adults with uncontrolled focal (partial-onset) seizures. METHODS: Data from three Phase III studies of an antiepileptic drug (adjunctive brivaracetam; n = 1095) were used. Analysis included correlations between EQ-5D-3L and Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory (QOLIE-31P) and seizure frequency. Known group validity was based on ability of the EQ-5D-3L to discriminate between baseline QOLIE-31P total scores, seizure type and number of antiepileptic drugs using effect sizes (ES). Responsiveness assessed proportions reporting highest or lowest scores, overall change using standardized response means (SRM) and change by responder and clinician/patient evaluation groups using ES. RESULTS: Correlations were weak to moderate (ρ = 0.2-0.4) between EQ-5D-3L dimensions and QOLIE-31P subscales, apart from medication effects (ρ < 0.1); seizure frequency was not associated with either measure. Known group analysis had small ES. A quarter (24.9%) of patients had a baseline EQ-5D-3L utility score of 1 (full health) but lower average QOLIE-31P scores. SRMs were small (<0.1) in EQ-5D-3L compared with 0.1-0.4 for QOLIE-31P subscales. Results across the studies were mixed for responder status and clinician/patient evaluation of improvement for EQ-5D-3L. CONCLUSIONS: EQ-5D-3L had weak-to-moderate correlations with QOLIE-31P and varied with QOLIE-31P severity groups, but showed less responsiveness than QOLIE-31P. Given this lack of sensitivity, EQ-5D-3L may not be appropriate for measuring the impact of interventions in cost-effectiveness analysis in this population and disease-specific preference-based measures may be more appropriate.

Randomized double-blind comparison of cognitive and EEG effects of lacosamide and carbamazepine.

Differential effectiveness of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is more commonly determined by tolerability than efficacy. Cognitive effects of AEDs can adversely affect tolerability and quality of life. This study evaluated cognitive and EEG effects of lacosamide (LCM) compared with carbamazepine immediate-release (CBZ-IR). A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, two-period crossover, fixed-dose study in healthy subjects compared neuropsychological and EEG effects of LCM (150mg, b.i.d.) and CBZ-IR (200mg, t.i.d.). Testing was conducted at screening, predrug baseline, the end of each treatment period (3-week titration; 3-week maintenance), and the end of each washout period (4weeks after treatment). A composite Z-score was derived for the primary outcome variable (computerized cognitive tests and traditional neuropsychological measures) and separately for the EEG measures. Other variables included individual computer, neuropsychological, and EEG scores and adverse events (AEs). Subjects included 60 healthy adults (57% female; mean age: 34.4years [SD: 10.5]); 44 completed both treatments; 41 were per protocol subjects. Carbamazepine immediate-release had worse scores compared with LCM for the primary composite neuropsychological outcome (mean difference=0.33 [SD: 1.36], p=0.011) and for the composite EEG score (mean difference=0.92 [SD: 1.77], p=0.003). Secondary analyses across the individual variables revealed that CBZ-IR was statistically worse than LCM on 36% (4/11) of the neuropsychological tests (computerized and noncomputerized) and 0% of the four EEG measures; none favored CBZ-IR. Drug-related AEs occurred more with CBZ-IR (49%) than LCM (22%). Lacosamide had fewer untoward neuropsychological and EEG effects and fewer AEs and AE-related discontinuations than CBZ-IR in healthy subjects. Lacosamide exhibits a favorable cognitive profile.

PatientsLikeMe® Online Epilepsy Community: Patient characteristics and predictors of poor health-related quality of life.

OBJECTIVE: The online PatientsLikeMe® Epilepsy Community allows patients with epilepsy to record, monitor, and share their demographic, disease, and treatment characteristics, providing valuable insights into patient perceptions and understanding of epilepsy. The objective of this retrospective analysis was to characterize the profile of users and their disease and identify factors predictive of poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL), while assessing the platform's potential in providing patient-reported data for research purposes. METHODS: Data recorded (January 2010-November 2011) by Epilepsy Community members, with an epilepsy diagnosis and who reported >1 seizure, included the following: sociodemographic and disease characteristics, treatments, symptoms, side effects perceived as medication-related, seizure occurrence, and standardized questionnaires (Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory [QOLIE-31/P], EuroQoL 5-Dimensions Scale, 3 Levels [EQ-5D-3L], and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]). Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were conducted to identify predictors of poor HRQoL. RESULTS: During the study period, the Epilepsy Community comprised 3073 patients, of whom 71.5% were female, had a mean age of 37.8years, and had a mean epilepsy duration of 17.7years. The most frequently reported moderate/severe symptoms (n=2135) included memory problems (60.2%), problems concentrating (53.8%), and fatigue (50.0%). Medication-related side effects (n=639) included somnolence (23.2%), fatigue (17.2%), and memory impairment (13.8%). The QOLIE-31/P scores (n=1121) were significantly worse in patients who experienced a recent seizure. For QOLIE-31/P, highly predictive factors for poor HRQoL included the following: mild/moderate problems concentrating, depression, memory problems, treatment side effects, occurrence of tonic-clonic seizures, and epilepsy duration ≤1year. For EQ-5D-3L, highly predictive factors for poor HRQoL included the following: pain, depression, and comorbidities. Patients on newer AEDs were less likely to report poor HRQoL (QOLIE-31/P). SIGNIFICANCE: These findings move further towards supporting the feasibility and usefulness of collecting real-world, anonymized data recorded by patients online. The data provide insights into factors impacting HRQoL, suggesting that a holistic treatment approach beyond seizure control should be considered in epilepsy.

Safety, tolerability, and seizure control during long-term treatment with adjunctive brivaracetam for partial-onset seizures.

OBJECTIVES: To report pooled safety/tolerability and seizure outcome data from adults with uncontrolled partial-onset (focal) seizures (POS) receiving adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV) during phase IIb/III and long-term follow-up (LTFU) studies. METHODS: Seizure outcome data were pooled from phase IIb (NCT00175929 and NCT00175825), III/IIIb (NCT00490035, NCT00464269, NCT00504881, and NCT01261325) and associated LTFU studies (NCT00175916, NCT00150800, and NCT01339559). Safety/tolerability data were pooled from these studies plus NCT01405508, NCT01653262, and NCT01728077 (LTFU). Patients received placebo (during core studies) or BRV 5-200 mg/day. Safety/tolerability and seizure outcomes (BRV modal doses 50-200 mg/day) were assessed until January 17, 2014. RESULTS: Of 2,186 patients (97.3% with POS and 2.7% with other seizure types) who received BRV 50-200 mg/day, 2,051 (93.8%) completed core studies and continued in LTFU studies. Total BRV exposure: 5,339.4 patient-years (≥8.0 years in 41 patients); 6-, 12-, 24-, and 60-month retention: 91.0%, 79.8%, 68.1%, and 54.4%, respectively. Safety/tolerability data pooled from 2,186 patients: ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) reported by 1,848 (84.5%) patients; 1,184 (54.2%) reported ≥1 TEAE considered treatment-related. Most frequent TEAEs (≥10%): headache (20.9%), dizziness (17.5%), somnolence (15.2%), nasopharyngitis (13.2%), fatigue (11.3%), and convulsion (10.6%). Serious TEAEs (SAEs) and treatment-related SAEs: 401 (18.3%) and 95 (4.3%) patients, respectively. Of 28 (1.3%) deaths, four (14.3%) were considered possibly treatment related by the investigator. Pooled seizure outcome data (1,836 patients): median POS frequency/28 days at baseline was 8.9; on treatment, median percentage reduction from baseline in POS/28 days was 48.8%, and ≥50% responder rate was 48.7%. Complete seizure freedom: 4.9%, 4.2%, 3.0%, and 3.3% for ≥6, 12, 24, and 60 months, respectively. Improvements were seen in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) from baseline, assessed by Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory-31. SIGNIFICANCE: Adjunctive BRV treatment in adults with POS was effective and generally well tolerated when administered long-term (≥8.0 years). Retention was high and HRQoL improvements were observed.