Brivaracetam as add-on therapy in children with developmental epileptic encephalopathies: A study of 42 patients.

OBJECTIVE: Here we present a multicenter series of patients with developmental epileptic encephalopathies (DEE) who were treated with brivaracetam (BRV) as add-on therapy. METHODS: Medical records of 42 patients with DEE treated with add-on BRV seen at four pediatric neurology centers in Argentina between January 2021 and July 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: We included 42 patients (26 males, 16 females) with a mean age of 7 years (SD, ± 3.8; median, 9; range, 2-16). The children had different types of childhood-onset treatment-resistant DEEs and received BRV as add-on therapy for a mean period of 2 years (SD, ± 1.3 years; median, 1.5 years; range, 0.5-3 years). Thirty-three patients received levetiracetam (LEV) before the introduction of BRV. In nine patients, BRV was started without prior LEV because of behavioral disturbances. Three patients (9.5 %) became seizure free and 26/42 patients (62.1 %) had a greater than 50 % decrease in seizures after a mean follow-up of 21 months. Ten patients (23.8 %) had a 25-50 % seizure reduction, while seizure frequency remained unchanged in two (4.7 %) and increased in one patient (2.4 %). The interictal EEG abnormalities improved in all the responders. Adverse effects, consisting of drowsiness, irritability, and decreased appetite, were observed in seven patients (16.6 %), but did not lead to treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Brivaracetam was found to be effective, safe, and well tolerated in children with DEE. In patients on LEV with behavioral disturbances, BRV may be tried. BRV may also be given without a previous trial with LEV in patients with behavioral problems.

Value of drug level concentrations of brivaracetam, lacosamide, and perampanel in care of people with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether clinical efficacy and reported adverse effects (AEs) of the newer antiseizure medications (ASMs) brivaracetam (BRV), lacosamide (LCM), and perampanel (PER) have been associated with plasma levels of these ASMs. We also investigated whether plasma levels outside the reference range has led to dose adjustments. METHODS: Plasma levels of 300 people with epilepsy (PWE) seen at our tertiary epilepsy center were determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. PWE received BRV (n = 100), LCM (n = 100), or PER (n = 100), in most cases in polytherapy. Demographic and clinical data were retrospectively analyzed and related to plasma levels. Clinical efficacy of BRV, LCM, or PER was assessed retrospectively by comparing seizure frequency at the time of current blood draw with seizure frequency at the time of first administration. AEs were also recorded and, if reported, compared retrospectively with the time of first administration. RESULTS: No significant associations were found between plasma levels of BRV, LCM, or PER and seizure freedom (BRV, p = 1.000; LCM, p = .243; PER, p = .113) or responder status (BRV, p = .118; LCM, p = .478; PER, p = .069) at presentation. There was also no pattern between plasma levels and the occurrence of AEs. In the majority of cases, drug levels outside the reference ranges have not led to adjustments in the daily doses of BRV (93.5%), LCM (93.9%), or PER (89.1%). SIGNIFICANCE: Plasma levels at a given time point did not allow conclusions to be drawn about seizure control or the occurrence of AEs. Our findings indicate that efficacy and tolerability cannot be predicted based on averaged data from a single plasma measurement due to high interindividual variability. Instead, individual reference values should be established when sufficient clinical data are available, in line with the 2008 International League Against Epilepsy position paper on therapeutic drug monitoring.

The real-world effectiveness of intravenous brivaracetam as a second-line treatment in status epilepticus.

PURPOSE: Status epilepticus (SE) is defined by abnormally prolonged seizures that may lead to brain damage and death. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability (effectiveness) of intravenous brivaracetam (BRV) as a second-line treatment. METHODS: Twenty-one patients (median age 68 years ± 17.28) were prospectively recruited between June 2019 and December 2022. Patients were treated with BRV (50-200 mg) as a second-line add-on therapy for SE. We evaluated the response of SE to the administration of BRV in terms of SE termination and recurrence of epileptic seizures at 6, 12, and 24 h, also monitoring safety. The first-line therapy was represented by intravenous benzodiazepines (mainly diazepam). RESULTS: Almost a quarter of patients had generalized seizures, whereas the vast majority (76.2%) presented focal seizures. In 52.4% of patients, the underlying cause was cerebrovascular. Fourteen (66.7%) patients displayed a good early response in the subsequent 6 h. At 12 and 24 h, 8 (38%) and 11 (52.4%) patients, respectively, did not present seizures. CONCLUSION: The present study highlights the potential of BRV when used as an early add-on therapy in SE, further confirming its good safety profile.

Effectiveness and Tolerability of 12-Month Brivaracetam in the Real World: EXPERIENCE, an International Pooled Analysis of Individual Patient Records.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Real-world evidence studies of brivaracetam (BRV) have been restricted in scope, location, and patient numbers. The objective of this pooled analysis was to assess effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in routine practice in a large international population. METHODS: EXPERIENCE/EPD332 was a pooled analysis of individual patient records from multiple independent non-interventional studies of patients with epilepsy initiating BRV in Australia, Europe, and the United States. Eligible study cohorts were identified via a literature review and engagement with country lead investigators, clinical experts, and local UCB Pharma scientific/medical teams. Included patients initiated BRV no earlier than January 2016 and no later than December 2019, and had ≥ 6 months of follow-up data. The databases for each cohort were reformatted and standardised to ensure information collected was consistent. Outcomes included ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in seizure frequency, seizure freedom (no seizures within 3 months before timepoint), continuous seizure freedom (no seizures from baseline), BRV discontinuation, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Patients with missing data after BRV discontinuation were considered non-responders/not seizure free. Analyses were performed for all adult patients (≥ 16 years), and for subgroups by seizure type recorded at baseline; by number of prior antiseizure medications (ASMs) at index; by use of BRV as monotherapy versus polytherapy at index; for patients who switched from levetiracetam to BRV versus patients who switched from other ASMs to BRV; and for patients with focal-onset seizures and a BRV dose of ≤ 200 mg/day used as add-on at index. Analysis populations included the full analysis set (FAS; all patients who received at least one BRV dose and had seizure type and age documented at baseline) and the modified FAS (all FAS patients who had at least one seizure recorded during baseline). The FAS was used for all outcomes other than ≥ 50% seizure reduction. All outcomes were summarised using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Analyses included 1644 adults. At baseline, 72.0% were 16-49 years of age and 92.2% had focal-onset seizures. Patients had a median (Q1, Q3) of 5.0 (2.0, 8.0) prior antiseizure medications at index. At 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively, ≥ 50% seizure reduction was achieved by 32.1% (n = 619), 36.7% (n = 867), and 36.9% (n = 822) of patients; seizure freedom rates were 22.4% (n = 923), 17.9% (n = 1165), and 14.9% (n = 1111); and continuous seizure freedom rates were 22.4% (n = 923), 15.7% (n = 1165), and 11.7% (n = 1111). During the whole study follow-up, 551/1639 (33.6%) patients discontinued BRV. TEAEs since prior visit were reported in 25.6% (n = 1542), 14.2% (n = 1376), and 9.3% (n = 1232) of patients at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis using data from a variety of real-world settings suggests BRV is effective and well tolerated in routine clinical practice in a highly drug-resistant patient population.

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

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

Long-term safety and efficacy of adjunctive brivaracetam in pediatric patients with epilepsy: An open-label, follow-up trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to evaluate the long-term safety, tolerability, and efficacy of adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV) treatment in pediatric patients with epilepsy. METHODS: A phase 3, open-label, multicenter, long-term follow-up trial (N01266; NCT01364597) was conducted on patients (aged 1 month to <17 years at core trial entry; direct enrollers aged 4 to <17 years) treated with BRV. Outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), behavior assessments (Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist [CBCL], Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function [BRIEF]/BRIEF-Preschool version [BRIEF-P]), and efficacy outcomes (percent change in focal seizure frequency, 50% responder rate for all seizure types for patient subgroups <2 years and ≥2 years of age using daily record card data). RESULTS: Of 257 patients with ≥1 dose of BRV (141 [54.9%] male; mean age = 8.0 years [SD = 4.5]), 36 patients were <2 years of age, and 72.0% of patients had a history of focal seizures. Mean BRV exposure was 3.2 patient-years. At least one TEAE occurred in 93.4% patients, and 32.3% had serious TEAEs. Seven patients died during the trial; no deaths were considered treatment-related. Patients ≥2 years of age had a median decrease in 28-day adjusted focal seizure frequency of 62.9%, and 50.9% had a ≥50% response in all seizures. Patients <2 years of age had a median decrease in 28-day adjusted focal seizure frequency of 96.9%, and 68.2% had a ≥50% response in all seizures. Kaplan-Meier estimated treatment retention was 72.7%, 64.5%, 57.8%, 53.3%, 50.1%, and 44.8% at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 years, respectively. Mean changes (baseline to last evaluation) for all Achenbach CBCL and BRIEF-P/BRIEF subscale scores were negative, reflecting stability/slight improvement. SIGNIFICANCE: Long-term adjunctive BRV treatment was generally well tolerated and efficacious in reducing seizure frequency, and had high retention rates, with generally stable cognitive/behavioral scores in pediatric patients with epilepsy.

The efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam for the treatment of adult epilepsy: An Australian multi-center retrospective real-world observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the efficacy and tolerability of add-on therapy brivaracetam (BRV) in adult patients with epilepsy in a real-world setting. METHODS: This multi-center retrospective observational cohort study examined all adult patients who commenced on BRV at 11 Australian epilepsy centers between 2017 and 2020. Primary outcomes were seizure response (≥50% reduction in frequency) and seizure freedom 12 months post BRV commencement, and tolerability. We report three approaches to missing data (complete case analysis, CCA; last observation carried forward, LOCF; and intention to treat, ITT). Secondary outcomes included the durability of early BRV response and continuous seizure freedom from BRV initiation. Subgroup analysis examined patients with focal and generalized epilepsy and patients with refractory (≥4 prior ASMs) and highly refractory (≥7 prior ASMs) epilepsy. Outcomes were also assessed at 'personalized' seizure outcome time points based on baseline seizure frequency. RESULTS: Baseline and follow-up data were available for 228 patients. The mean age was 41.5 years (IQR 30, 50). Most had focal epilepsy (188/228, 82.5%). Median number of previous ASMs was 4 (2, 7), and concomitant ASMs 2 (2, 3). Twelve-month responder rate was: 46.3% using CCA (95% CI 34.0, 58.9); 39.5% using LOCF (33.1, 46.1); and 15.4% using ITT (10.9, 20.7). Twelve-month seizure freedom was: 23.9% using CCA (14.3, 35.9); 24.6% using LOCF (19.1, 30.7); and 7.9% using ITT (4.7, 12.1). The most frequent adverse effects were sedation or cognitive slowing (33/228, 14.5%), irritability or aggression (16/228, 7.0%), and low mood (14/228, 6.1%). Outcomes were similar using continuous outcome definitions and 'personalized' outcome assessment time points. Early responses were highly durable, with 3-month response maintained at all subsequent time points at 83%, and seizure freedom maintained at 85%. Outcomes were similar in focal (n = 187) and generalizsed (n = 25) subgroups. Outcomes were similar in refractory patients (n = 129), but lower in the highly refractory group (n = 62), however improvement with BRV was still observed with 12-month seizure freedom of 8.3% using CCA (1.0, 27), 6.5% using LOCF (1.8, 15.7); and 3.2% using ITT (0.4, 11.2). CONCLUSIONS: Meaningful real-world responder and seizure freedom rates can be still observed in a refractory epilepsy population. Brivaracetam response can occur early and appears to be maintained with minimal later relapse. The results should be interpreted with caution given the retrospective nature of the study and the quantities of missing data at later time points.

Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Brivaracetam in Healthy Elderly Participants.

The pharmacokinetics, metabolism, safety, and tolerability of the antiseizure medication brivaracetam (BRV) were characterized in 16 healthy elderly participants (8 men/8 women) aged 65-78 years who received a single 200-mg oral dose of BRV on day 1, followed by 200 mg twice daily from day 3 until day 12. BRV and three metabolites were determined in plasma and urine. Adverse events, vital signs, electrocardiograms, laboratory tests, general and neurological examinations, and psychometric rating scales were recorded at regular intervals. No clinically relevant changes or abnormalities were detected. The adverse events were similar to those observed in pivotal trials. Rating scales indicated transiently increased sedation and decreased alertness. BRV pharmacokinetics and metabolism were unchanged relative to younger populations. Based on our observations in this healthy elderly population receiving oral BRV 200 mg twice daily (twice the maximum recommended dose), dose reductions are not warranted relative to other, younger populations. Further investigations may be necessary in frail elderly populations aged >80 years.

A retrospective multicentric study on the effectiveness of intravenous brivaracetam in seizure clusters: Data from the Italian experience.

OBJECTIVE: Nearly half of people with epilepsy (PWE) are expected to develop seizure clusters (SC), with the subsequent risk of hospitalization. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the use, effectiveness and safety of intravenous (IV) brivaracetam (BRV) in the treatment of SC. METHODS: Retrospective multicentric study of patients with SC (≥ 2 seizures/24 h) who received IV BRV. Data collection occurred from January 2019 to April 2022 in 25 Italian neurology units. Primary efficacy outcome was seizure freedom up to 24 h from BRV administration. We also evaluated the risk of evolution into Status Epilepticus (SE) at 6, 12 and 24 h after treatment initiation. A Cox regression model was used to identify outcome predictors. RESULTS: 97 patients were included (mean age 62 years), 74 (76%) of whom had a history of epilepsy (with drug resistant seizures in 49% of cases). BRV was administered as first line treatment in 16% of the episodes, while it was used as first or second drug after benzodiazepines failure in 49% and 35% of episodes, respectively. On the one hand, 58% patients were seizure free at 24 h after BRV administration and no other rescue medications were used in 75 out of 97 cases (77%) On the other hand, SC evolved into SE in 17% of cases. A higher probability of seizure relapse and/or evolution into SE was observed in patients without a prior history of epilepsy (HR 2.0; 95% CI 1.03 - 4.1) and in case of BRV administration as second/third line drug (HR 3.2; 95% CI 1.1 - 9.7). No severe treatment emergent adverse events were observed. SIGNIFICANCE: In our cohort, IV BRV resulted to be well tolerated for the treatment of SC and it could be considered as a treatment option, particularly in case of in-hospital onset. However, the underlying etiology seems to be the main outcome predictor.

Rapid intravenous loading of brivaracetam during invasive and non-invasive video-EEG monitoring.

PURPOSE: The pharmacokinetics of Brivaracetam (BRV) and its ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier quickly make it a suitable drug for emergencies. In this study, our aim was to investigate the tolerability, safety, and acute efficacy of rapid intravenous (IV) loading of BRV during invasive and non-invasive video-EEG monitoring in patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy (DRFE). METHODS: Eleven adult patients, six during stereo-electroencephalography (SEEG) and five in scalp video-EEG evaluation, received a 10-minute IV infusion of BRV 100 mg after a period of total withdrawal from antiseizure medications (ASMs). The ictal and interictal EEG activity was assessed through visual and spectrographic analysis before and after intravenous BRV administration. Patients completed the Liverpool Adverse Events Profile (LAEP) scale to evaluate tolerability and adverse events. RESULTS: Rapid BRV IV infusion was well tolerated in all patients. The mean LAEP values showed no significant differences (p = 0.40). Loading BRV resulted in a reduction in interictal activity in six patients. The mean seizure frequency significantly decreased five hours after BRV administration (a 79.2 % reduction across the entire group, p = 0.027). A significant change in spectral band analysis was observed ten minutes after BRV administration. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that rapid BRV IV infusion has a favorable safety profile and is effective in controlling seizure series in the short term. The electrophysiological changes observed ten minutes after the BRV load correlate with its effects on brain dynamics after blood-brain barrier diffusion.

A review of cognitive and behavioral outcomes of Brivaracetam.

Anti-seizure medications (ASMs) can cause cognitive or behavioral adverse drug reactions, which is an important consideration when selecting an appropriate ASM. Brivaracetam (BRV) is a newer synaptic vesicle protein 2A ligand, which is expected to result in fewer neuropsychiatric adverse effects due to its mechanism of action. To understand the impact of BRV on cognition and behavior compared with other ASMs, we conducted a review of the literature using the Cochrane Library, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Embase. After the screening process, a total of two animal studies, one randomized controlled trial, one pooled analysis of clinical trials, one controlled study, and nine observational studies were included. The animal studies showed that BRV did not worsen cognitive or behavioral performance in rodents. The human studies showed that BRV was associated with fewer cognitive adverse events compared with other second- or third-generation ASMs. In addition, BRV was less associated with behavioral disturbance than levetiracetam. In summary, this review revealed that BRV has a limited impact on cognition and behavior. For patients who are intolerant to levetiracetam and have levetiracetam-related behavioral side effects, switching to BRV could be beneficial. However, heterogeneity between studies resulted in low-quality of evidence, and further trials are needed to confirm the findings.

Seizures in palliative medicine: brivaracetam.

Seizures occur in around 13% of patients with cancer and can be distressing for family members to witness. In those unable to manage regular antiepileptic medications, midazolam can be administered subcutaneously using a syringe driver, but this may cause sedation. Brivaracetam is a newer drug licensed as an adjunctive therapy in the treatment of partial-onset seizures with or without secondary generalisation and for restricted use in those with refractory epilepsy. It is associated with fewer behavioural or psychiatric side effects than levetiracetam, has a very low incidence of drug interactions and the maximal dose can be accommodated in a single syringe driver. We present three cases from 2019 to 2020 where subcutaneous brivaracetam has been successfully used in a Specialist Inpatient Palliative Care setting to manage seizures. Brivaracetam dosing is 1:1 conversion from oral:subcutaneous, with syringe driver doses ranging from 150 mg to 300 mg/24 hours being successfully used, with no adverse effects observed.

BRIVEST: A 'real-world' observational, single-centre study investigating the efficacy, safety and tolerability of Brivaracetam.

OBJECTIVE: Via measures of efficacy, tolerability, and safety, this open-label, single-center study assessed the overall effectiveness of Brivaracetam (BRV) for the treatment of epilepsy in the context of 'real-world' clinical practice. METHODS: Unselected consecutive patients were recruited and stratified into 3 cohorts with either fully prospective, fully retrospective or mixed data collection, dependent on whether their BRV prescriptions were historical, current, or pending. Prospective data were obtained at baseline, 3 and 6 months, and at 6-month intervals thereafter, from patient interviews and seizure diaries, and retrospective data from medical records. Efficacy variables were derived from seizure-related changes, and tolerability and safety variables from reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), BRV withdrawal, and changes to questionnaire scores. Additionally, we investigated treatment outcomes for those with previous levetiracetam (LEV) use, a history of psychiatric comorbidity, a learning disability, and of older age. RESULTS: One hundred and nine patients (58.7% female, mean age 42 years, range: 18 to 72) were included, 59 with prospective follow-up for a minimum of 6 (47 patients, excluding those who withdrew) and a maximum of 24 months (2 patients). Of the full cohort, 87.2% had drug-resistant epilepsy. Retention: At the study end, the median treatment duration was 384 days (range: 6 to 1514 days), and BRV retention was 68.8%. Kaplan-Meier survival functions predicted retention rates of 74.0% and 70.0% at 6 and 12 months respectively. EFFICACY: At the last follow-up, there was a ≥ 50% responder rate of 30.8%, with 12.1% seizure-free. Seizure frequency categories improved in 31.4% of patients, remained the same in 44.2%, and worsened in 24.4%. Monthly tonic-clonic seizure frequency had significantly decreased, and of those reporting these seizures, 58.3% showed reductions and 25.0% showed complete tonic-clonic seizure freedom. TOLERABILITY: 91.7% of patients reported at least 1 TEAE, with fatigue (30.3%), irritability (29.4%), and depression/low mood (28.4%) as the most common. Only 58.4% of all TEAEs were persistent. Brivaracetam discontinuation due to side effects occurred in 27.5% of the cohort. Depression and anxiety scores remained stable over time, and quality-of-life scores improved. Subgroups: Measures of BRV efficacy and tolerability did not differ according to previous LEV exposure. Tolerability profiles of those with learning disabilities, histories of psychiatric comorbidities, and older age did not greatly differ from the rest of the cohort. Of note, specific history of depression predicted the reporting of suicidal ideation. CONCLUSION: The BRIVEST study provides real-world evidence of the effectiveness of BRV, suggesting that neither drug-resistant epilepsy nor previous LEV failure should preclude its use. Furthermore, BRV appears to be well-tolerated, even among those from vulnerable patient populations.

Retention, efficacy, tolerability, and quality of life during long-term adjunctive brivaracetam treatment by number of lifetime antiseizure medications: A post hoc analysis of phase 3 trials in adults with focal seizures.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term retention, reasons for discontinuation, efficacy, tolerability, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) during adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV) treatment in adults with focal seizures by number of lifetime antiseizure medications (ASMs). METHODS: Post hoc analyses of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (N01358; NCT01261325) and corresponding open-label extension (OLE) (N01379; NCT01339559) of adjunctive BRV in adults (16-80 years of age) with focal seizures. Outcomes were assessed from the first day of BRV treatment in the double-blind (patients randomized to BRV) or open-label trial (patients randomized to placebo) by number of lifetime ASMs (1-2, 3-4, 5-6, or ≥ 7). Lifetime ASMs were defined as previous (stopped before BRV initiation) and concomitant ASMs at BRV initiation. RESULTS: Seven hundred and forty patients received adjunctive BRV (safety set [SS]; median modal dose: 200 mg/day [N = 737]; median treatment duration: 2.67 years), of whom 13.8 % had 1-2, 20.8 % had 3-4, 21.1 % had 5-6 and 44.3 % had ≥7 lifetime ASMs. Patients with a higher number of lifetime ASMs had a younger age at epilepsy onset, longer epilepsy duration, and higher baseline seizure frequency. Kaplan-Meier estimated retention on BRV at 12 (83.2-65.9 %) and 36 months (63.0-44.1 %) was highest in patients with 1-2 lifetime ASMs and decreased with the number of lifetime ASMs. The estimated proportions of patients who discontinued BRV due to lack of efficacy or treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) increased with the number of lifetime ASMs. Efficacy analyses included seven hundred and thirty eight patients (intention-to-treat set [ITT]). Median percentage reductions from baseline in focal seizure frequency/28 days (76.3-39.6 %), 50 % responder rates (66.7-39.8 %), 75 % responder rates (51.0-19.6 %), and continuous seizure freedom for ≥12 months at any time during BRV treatment (35.3-6.1 %) were highest in patients with 1-2 lifetime ASMs and decreased by the number of lifetime ASMs. The overall incidence of TEAEs (SS) was generally similar in each lifetime ASM subgroup (84.4-90.5 %). Discontinuations due to TEAEs increased with the number of lifetime ASMs (7.8-20.1 %). The greatest improvements in QOLIE-31-P scores occurred in the Seizure Worry and Daily Activities/Social Function subscales, with no clear pattern by the number of lifetime ASMs at 12 months and with the highest improvement in patients with 1-2 lifetime ASMs at 24 months. At 24 months, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Anxiety subscale scores improved in patients (SS) with 1-2 and 3-4 lifetime ASMs. HADS Depression subscale scores were generally stable independent of the number of lifetime ASMs. CONCLUSIONS: The balance between efficacy, tolerability, and HRQOL was most favorable in patients with focal seizures who had been exposed to one or two ASMs before BRV initiation. However, patients exposed to ≥7 ASMs before BRV initiation also benefitted from long-term adjunctive BRV treatment.

Narrative review of brivaracetam for genetic generalized epilepsies.

BACKGROUND: The licensed treatment options for genetic generalized epilepsies are limited although many patients with these conditions require chronic pharmacological management with antiseizure medications and there are no curative surgical treatment options. Brivaracetam is being studied as a new therapeutic option for genetic generalized epilepsies. METHOD: In order to carry out a narrative review on the efficacy and safety of brivaracetam in genetic generalized epilepsies, a literature research was performed in Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane and Clinical Trials.gov databases. RESULTS: Promising results were found with doses ranging from 50 to 200 mg/day in terms of efficacy (with > 50% responder rates between 36 and 84%), tolerability, and short and long-term safety (24-57% drug-associated adverse effects), with most studies reporting adequate retention rates and an absence of serious adverse effects, in monotherapy or as adjuvant therapy, even in refractory epilepsies, special populations and in patients with previous use and/or therapeutic failure with levetiracetam. CONCLUSION: According to our review, brivaracetam is a valid treatment alternative in patients with genetic generalized epilepsies capable of improving patients' quality of life by reducing seizure frequency with minimal adverse effects.

Brivaracetam add-on treatment in pediatric patients with severe drug-resistant epilepsy: Italian real-world evidence.

PURPOSE: To report the efficacy and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in add-on therapy in pediatric patients with severe drug-resistant epilepsy. Prognostic factors of clinical outcome were also analyzed. METHODS: This Italian multicenter retrospective observational study was conducted on 45 pediatric patients with severe drug-resistant epilepsy, treated with BRV for at least 1 month and with a follow-up >6 months. Demographic, clinical, and treatment variables were assessed at T0 (baseline, BRV introduction) and T1 (6 months after BRV introduction). The response was defined as ≥50% seizure frequency reduction; responders and non-responders were then compared to assess potential prognostic factors. RESULTS: Forty-five patients (M = 28, mean age 12.4+/-4.4 years) were enrolled (focal epilepsy=14; generalized epilepsy=2; epileptic encephalopathy=29). At T1, 19/45 patients (42.2%) were responders (≥50% seizure frequency reduction), with 4 patients (8.9%) achieving a ≥ 75% seizure reduction and 2 patients (4.4%) becoming seizure free. Epilepsy onset at >12 months of age (p = 0.001), disease duration ≤6 years (p = 0.036), and lower seizure frequency at baseline (p = 0.008) were the prognostic factors significantly associated with a better prognosis. No significant difference emerged for demographics, epilepsy types/etiology, intellectual disability, or therapy variables. At T1, 21 patients (46.6%) discontinued BRV, mainly due to lack of efficacy (13 subjects; 28.9%) and adverse events in 8 patients (17.8%). CONCLUSION: Brivaracetam was an effective and tolerated treatment in pediatric patients with severe drug-resistant epilepsy, especially when the seizure onset was at >12 months of age, the epilepsy duration ≤6 years, and the seizure frequency before BRV treatment was low. Further and controlled studies are needed.

Retention of brivaracetam in adults with drug-resistant epilepsy at a single tertiary care center.

INTRODUCTION: Brivaracetam (BRV) is licensed as an adjunctive treatment for focal epilepsy. We describe our clinical experience with BRV at a large UK tertiary center. METHODS: Adults initiated on BRV between July 2015 and July 2020 were followed up until they discontinued BRV or September 2021. Data on epilepsy syndrome, duration, seizure types, concomitant and previous antiseizure medication (ASM) use, BRV dosing, efficacy, and side effects were recorded. Efficacy was categorized as temporary (minimum three months) or ongoing (at last follow-up) seizure freedom, ≥50% seizure reduction, or other benefits (e.g., no convulsions or daytime seizures). Brivaracetam retention was estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: Two-hundred people were treated with BRV, of whom 81% had focal epilepsy. The mean (interquartile range [IQR]) follow-up time was 707 (688) days, and the dose range was 50-600 mg daily. The mean (IQR) of the previous number of used ASMs was 6.9 (6.0), and concomitant use was 2.2 (1.0). One-hundred and eighty-eight people (94%) had previously discontinued levetiracetam (LEV), mainly due to side effects. 13/200 (6.5%) were seizure free for a minimum of six months during treatment, and 46/200 (23%) had a ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency for six months or more. Retention rates were 83% at six months, 71% at 12 months, and 57% at 36 months. Brivaracetam was mostly discontinued due to side effects (38/75, 51%) or lack of efficacy (28/75, 37%). Concomitant use of carbamazepine significantly increased the hazard ratio of discontinuing BRV due to side effects (p = 0.006). The most commonly reported side effects were low mood (20.5%), fatigue (18%) and aggressive behavior (8.5%). These side effects were less prevalent than when the same individuals took LEV (low mood, 59%; aggressive behavior, 43%). Intellectual disability was a risk factor for behavioral side effects (p = 0.004), and a pre-existing mood disorder significantly increased the likelihood of further episodes of low mood (p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Brivaracetam was effective at a broad range of doses in managing drug-resistant epilepsy across various phenotypes, but less effective than LEV in those who switched due to poor tolerability on LEV. There were no new tolerability issues, but 77% of the individuals experiencing side effects on BRV also experienced similar side effects on LEV.

Efficacy, tolerability and pharmacokinetic variability of brivaracetam in adults with difficult-to-treat epilepsy.

PURPOSE: Brivaracetam (BRV) is one of our latest antiseizure medications (ASMs). It is an analogue of levetiracetam with limited real-life experience. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical experience with BRV with focus on efficacy, tolerability and pharmacokinetic variability among adult patients with difficult-to-treat epilepsy. METHODS: We retrospectively collected clinical and laboratory data from patients aged > 18 years who initiated treatment with BRV during 2016-2019 and were followed for > one year or cessation of BRV. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 120 adults with drug-resistant epilepsy. Serum concentrations of BRV were available in 72 patients. After one-year follow-up, the retention rate of BRV was 52%. Fifty-seven patients (48%) were responders (>50 reduction of seizure frequency), of whom six became seizure free. Adverse effects were reported in 78 patients (65%); 37 (31%) experienced psychiatric problems like increased irritability, anxiety and depressive symptoms. The mean daily BRV dose was 159 mg (SD 80 mg) and the mean serum concentration 5.4 µmol/L (SD 4.1 µmol/L). In 24 patients, BRV replaced levetiracetam. Pharmacokinetic variability between patients was considerable; 14-fold variation in concentration/dose (C/D)-ratios. Concomitant use of enzyme-inducing ASMs decreased the C/D-ratio by 48%. There were no significant differences in serum concentrations between responders vs. non-responders, or those who experienced adverse effects or not. CONCLUSION: After > 1 year of treatment with BRV, we found a responder rate of 48% in adult patients with difficult-to-treat epilepsy. The drug was largely well tolerated, but one third experienced psychiatric adverse effects. The combination of clinical and pharmacokinetic data provides insight into factors contributing to efficacy and tolerability of new ASMs.

Tolerability and efficacy of adjunctive brivaracetam in adults with focal seizures by concomitant antiseizure medication use: Pooled results from three phase 3 trials.

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to evaluate safety/tolerability and efficacy of adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV) in patients on one or two concomitant antiseizure medications (ASMs) and in patients on one specific concomitant ASM. METHODS: Post hoc analysis was made of double-blind trials (N01252/NCT00490035, N01253/NCT00464269, and N01358/NCT01261325) in adults with focal seizures randomized to BRV (50-200 mg/day; approved therapeutic dose range for adults) or placebo with concomitant ASM regimen unchanged throughout a 12-week evaluation period. Outcomes were analyzed in patients on one or two concomitant ASMs, and those on concomitant carbamazepine (CBZ), lamotrigine (LTG), oxcarbazepine (OXC), or valproate (VPA) only. RESULTS: Patients randomized to BRV with one or two concomitant ASMs, respectively (n = 181/557), reported similar incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; 68.0%/66.4%), drug-related TEAEs (41.4%/41.5%), and TEAEs leading to discontinuation (6.6%/5.4%). Respective values for patients randomized to placebo with one or two concomitant ASMs (n = 95/331) were 60.0%/60.7% (TEAEs), 32.6%/30.2% (drug-related TEAEs), and 2.1%/4.5% (TEAEs leading to discontinuation). The incidences of TEAEs, drug-related TEAEs, and TEAEs leading to discontinuation by specific concomitant ASM (CBZ, LTG, OXC, VPA) were similar to the overall incidences in patients taking one concomitant ASM. In patients on one or two concomitant ASMs, respectively, 50% responder rates were numerically higher on BRV (42.3%/36.8% [n = 175/511]) versus placebo (18.3%/19.5% [n = 93/298]). Patients with one or two ASMs on BRV (n = 175/509) versus placebo (n = 92/298) also had numerically higher 100% responder rates (BRV, 9.1%/4.5%; placebo, 1.1%/.3%) and seizure freedom (6.9%/3.7%; 1.1%/0). For patients taking concomitant CBZ, LTG, OXC, or VPA, efficacy was numerically higher with BRV (n = 54/30/27/27) versus placebo (n = 34/13/10/14-15; 50% responder rates: BRV, 31.5%/30.0%/40.7%/70.4%; placebo, 17.6%/7.7%/20.0%/33.3%; 100% responder rates: BRV, 5.6%/10.0%/11.1%/11.1%; placebo, 0 for all; seizure freedom: BRV, 3.7%/6.7%/7.4%/11.1%; placebo, 0 for all). SIGNIFICANCE: Therapeutic doses of BRV were efficacious and well tolerated regardless of the number of concomitant ASMs (one or two) or specific concomitant ASM (CBZ, LTG, OXC, VPA).