ucb-34714 and Sleepiness

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.. 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).. 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.. 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.

Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Anticonvulsants; Dizziness; Double-Blind Method; Electroencephalography; Epilepsy; Female; Humans; Lorazepam; Male; Middle Aged; Proof of Concept Study; Pyrrolidinones; Seizures; Sleepiness; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult

The objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV) with concomitant use of lamotrigine (LTG) or topiramate (TPM) in patients with uncontrolled focal seizures.. Data were pooled from three randomized, placebo-controlled Phase III studies (NCT00490035/N01252, NCT00464269/N01253, NCT01261325/N01358) of adults with focal (partial-onset) seizures. Patients taking concomitant levetiracetam were excluded from the efficacy populations, but included in the safety populations. This post-hoc analysis reports data from patients taking BRV in the approved therapeutic range (50-200mg/day) concomitantly with LTG or TPM.. The number of patients in each of the three BRV dosage groups was small, particularly for the TPM subgroup. Mean percent reduction over placebo in baseline-adjusted focal seizure frequency/28days for BRV 50, 100, and 200mg/day was 8.7, 5.3, and 8.9 in the LTG subgroup (n=220), and 8.4, 21.3, and -4.2 in the TPM subgroup (n=122). The ≥50% responder rate with concomitant LTG or TPM with BRV 50, 100, and 200mg/day or placebo was LTG: 28.1%, 36.1%, 34.1%, and 29.1%; and TPM: 14.3%, 44.4%, 25.0%, and 17.5%. There were numerically ≥50%, ≥75%, ≥90%, and 100% responder rates for patients taking BRV ≥50mg/day compared with placebo in both subgroups. In the LTG and TPM safety populations (n=245 versus n=125), treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported with LTG 68.7% versus 68.4%, and TPM 65.6% versus 57.8% (BRV ≥50mg/day versus placebo). Discontinuations due to TEAEs versus placebo were LTG 7.3% versus 6.3% and TPM 8.2% versus 4.7%. The three most frequently reported TEAEs for both subgroups were somnolence, dizziness, and fatigue. Of these, the incidence of fatigue in the LTG population appeared to increase with dose.. In this post-hoc pooled analysis, BRV administered with concomitant LTG or TPM reduced seizure frequency and was generally well tolerated for BRV doses of 50-200mg/day.

Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Dizziness; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Fatigue; Female; Humans; Lamotrigine; Male; Middle Aged; Pyrrolidinones; Seizures; Sleepiness; Topiramate; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult

Patients with intellectual disability (ID) are often excluded from clinical trials, and little is known about the best approach to treat their epilepsy. Brivaracetam (BRV) is a new antiepileptic drug (AED) for adjunctive treatment in patients with focal-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization. We analyzed the efficacy and tolerability of BRV in patients with ID and epilepsy who either had or had not previously received treatment with levetiracetam (LEV). Data on efficacy and tolerability were retrospectively collected. After the initial start of BRV in our tertiary epilepsy center, we analyzed medical records at 0, 3, 6 and 12 months of follow-up. 116 patients were included (mean age = 34.9 years, 44% female). All had complete data of 3-month follow-up, 76 of 6-month follow-up, and 39 patients of 1-year follow-up. Median starting dose of BRV was 50.0 mg/day and the mean number of concomitant AEDs was 2.6. Seizure reduction and no side effects were reported in more than half of all patients. The most reported side effects were somnolence, dizziness and aggression. Retention rates for BRV were 84.4%, 75.5% and 58.1% after 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. Seizure reduction and side effects did not differ significantly between the groups with or without previous LEV treatment. We demonstrate that BRV is effective and well tolerated in patients with epilepsy and ID, even in those where previous LEV treatment failed.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Anticonvulsants; Child; Dizziness; Epilepsy; Fatigue; Female; Headache; Humans; Intellectual Disability; Male; Middle Aged; Pyrrolidinones; Retrospective Studies; Sleepiness; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult

To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in a refractory epilepsy population in an outpatient clinical setting.. Retrospective medical information system review and self-report questionnaire for all patients treated with BRV until the end of 2017.. Thirty-eight patients were included, 73.7% female and mean age 36.2. The mean number of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for previous use was 8.9, and for current use was 2.5. Mean seizure frequency in the last 3 months was 12 per month. At 3, 6, 12, and 15 months, the 50% responder rates were 36.1%, 32%, 41.2%, and 45.5%, respectively. Patients took BRV for a median duration of 8.25 months, ranging from 7 days to 60 months. Retention rate was 75.0%, 72.0%, 59.2%, and 47.9% at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months, respectively. Overall, the main reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (AEs) (52.3%), lack of efficacy (35.3%), or both (11.8%). The rate of total AEs was 60.5% according to medical records and 85.7% according to questionnaire, including mostly tiredness, psychiatric, and memory complaints. Psychiatric side effects occurred in 31.6% according to medical records and 47.4% according to questionnaire results, which is higher than previously reported and persisted throughout the study period.. BRV appears to be a useful and safe add-on treatment, even in a very refractory group of patients. In this real-life clinical setting, psychiatric AEs were found at a higher rate than previously published.

Topics: Adult; Anger; Anticonvulsants; Anxiety; Canada; Depersonalization; Depression; Dizziness; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Emotional Regulation; Epilepsies, Partial; Epilepsy, Generalized; Female; Humans; Irritable Mood; Male; Memory Disorders; Middle Aged; Paranoid Disorders; Paresthesia; Pruritus; Pyrrolidinones; Retrospective Studies; Sleepiness; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult

This multicenter, retrospective study aimed to evaluate the efficiency, retention, safety, and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in children and adolescents with focal epilepsy.. All patients aged ≤17 years with focal epilepsy who started BRV in 2016 and 2017 were analyzed.. Thirty-four patients (mean age: 12.2 years, range: 3-17 years, 56% female) were treated with BRV for 25 days to 24 months, with a total exposure time of 19.7 years. Overnight switch from levetiracetam (LEV) to BRV was performed in 20 patients at a median ratio of 10:1. Retention rate was 97% at three months, with only one patient reporting a discontinuation of BRV treatment. Further dropouts were reported in one patient after seven months and in two patients after one year of treatment, respectively. The median length of exposure to BRV was 180 days. Efficacy at three months was 47% (50% responder rate), with 10 patients (29%) reporting seizure freedom. A long-term 50% responder rate was present in 12 patients [35%; four patients seizure-free (12%)] for more than six months and in seven patients (21%; no seizure-free patients) for more than 12 months. Treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 12% of patients, with the most common being sedation, somnolence, loss or gain of appetite, and psychobehavioral adverse events.. Use of BRV in children and adolescents seems to be safe and well-tolerated. The results with 50% responder rate of 47% are consistent with those from randomized controlled trials and postmarketing studies in adults. An immediate switch from LEV to BRV at a ratio of 10:1 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.

Topics: Adolescent; Anticonvulsants; Appetite; Child; Child Behavior Disorders; Child, Preschool; Drug Substitution; Epilepsies, Partial; Female; Humans; Male; Pyrrolidinones; Retrospective Studies; Sleepiness