Dataset Information

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.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Moseley B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10960767 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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.

Moseley Brian B Bourikas Dimitrios D Dimova Svetlana S Elmoufti Sami S Borghs Simon S

Advances in therapy 20240215 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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) ...[more]

PMID: 38356105

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThis 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.MethodsPost 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.ResultsPatients 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).SignificanceTherapeutic 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).

Project description:INTRODUCTION:There is an unmet need for well-tolerated antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) that effectively control focal onset seizures. This study aimed to evaluate the economic value of new AEDs in the treatment of focal onset seizure, with or without secondary generalization, in Finnish adults and adolescents with epilepsy, comparing brivaracetam with perampanel as adjunctive AEDs. METHODS:Economic value was assessed using cost-utility analysis. Periods of AED initiation, titration, response assessment (seizure freedom, ≥ 50% reduction, no response), switching in no response or treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and death were simulated using a discrete-event simulation model. Responses and switching were simulated based on a comprehensive Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary modeled outcome was the 3%/year discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), payer costs (year 2017 Euro) per patient, and net monetary benefit (NMB) were secondary outcomes. Probabilistic and comprehensive deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS:Brivaracetam was more efficacious and had fewer TEAEs than perampanel and other AEDs. Modeled average 5-year QALYs and costs were 3.671 and €28,297 for brivaracetam and 3.611 and €27,979 for perampanel, respectively. The resulting ICER for brivaracetam versus perampanel was only €5345/QALY gained in a deterministic base case scenario. Brivaracetam had a positive NMB and high probability of cost-effectiveness of €1190 and 71% or €1944 and 80% with the assumed willingness to pay of €25,358 or €38,036/QALY gained, respectively. The primary result was robust, with a positive NMB persistent in all sensitivity analysis scenarios. When switching from brivaracetam to perampanel was excluded from the modeling or switching from perampanel to brivaracetam was included, brivaracetam was cost-saving and more effective than perampanel (dominant). CONCLUSION:These simulated comparisons demonstrated that brivaracetam was more effective and potentially also more affordable than perampanel. Thus, brivaracetam is likely a cost-effective and net beneficial alternative to perampanel for treatment of focal onset seizures. Plain language summary available for this article.

Project description:BackgroundBrivaracetam (BRV), cenobamate (CNB), eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), lacosamide (LCM) and perampanel (PER) are antiseizure medications (ASMs) approved for adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures. So far, no randomised controlled trial directly compared the efficacy and safety of these drugs.ObjectiveWe estimated the comparative efficacy and safety of these ASMs for the treatment of focal-onset seizures in adults with epilepsy using a network meta-analysis (NMA).MethodsWe systematically searched (June week 4, 2021) MEDLINE (accessed by PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ). There were no date limitations or language restrictions. Randomised, double-blinded, controlled, parallel-group, add-on studies that compared oral BRV, CNB, ESL, LCM, and PER versus any comparator over maintenance periods of at least 12 weeks and included adult patients with focal seizures uncontrolled by concomitant ASMs were identified. The efficacy outcomes were the proportions of patients with ≥ 50% and 100% reduction in baseline seizure frequency during the maintenance period. The tolerability outcomes were the proportions of participants who experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and experienced at least one TEAE leading to discontinuation. Effect sizes were estimated by network meta-analyses within a frequentist framework. The hierarchy of competing interventions was established using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).ResultsSixteen trials (BRV: n = 3, CNB: n = 1, ESL: n = 4, LCM: n = 4, PER: n = 4) were included, overall enrolling 4507 patients randomised to add-on active treatments (BRV = 803, CNB = 221, ESL =9 90, LCM = 1104, and PER = 1389) and 2246 to add-on placebo. Cenobamate was associated with a higher rate of ≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction than BRV [odds ratio (OR) 2.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-3.66], ESL (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.07-3.48), LCM (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.04-3.32), and PER (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.16-3.70). There was a not statistically significant trend favouring CNB over ESL, LCM and PER for the seizure freedom outcome. Brivaracetam (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.86) and LCM (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40-0.88) were associated with a lower proportion of participants experiencing TEAEs compared to ESL, and patients treated with PER were associated with a higher risk to experience at least one TEAE (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.02-1.96) than BRV. According to SUCRA, CNB had the greatest likelihood of being the best option for the ≥ 50% and 100% seizure frequency reduction, and BRV and LCM had the highest probabilities of being the best-tolerated treatments.ConclusionsCenobamate ranked best for efficacy, and BRV and LCM were best tolerated over the other comparators. Although NMAs cannot replace direct comparisons, they may support physicians in clinical decision making.

Project description:ObjectivePrimary objective was to evaluate efficacy of lacosamide administered concomitantly with 1-3 antiseizure medications in young children with uncontrolled focal (partial-onset) seizures.MethodsDouble-blind, parallel-group trial (SP0967: NCT02477839/2013-000717-20) conducted between June 2015 and May 2020 at hospitals and clinics in 25 countries. Patients (aged ≥1 month to <4 years) with uncontrolled focal seizures were randomized 1:1 to adjunctive lacosamide or placebo using an interactive voice/web response system and stratified by age. After a 20-day titration period, patients who reached target-dose range (8-12 mg/kg/day) entered a 7-day maintenance period. Region-specific primary efficacy variables were based on ≤72-h video-electroencephalograms: change in average daily frequency (ADF) of electrographic focal seizures as measured on end-of-maintenance video-electroencephalogram versus end-of-baseline video-electroencephalogram (United States); 50% responder rate (≥50% reduction in ADF of focal seizures) during maintenance (European Union).ResultsIn total, 255 patients were randomized (lacosamide/placebo: 128/127) and received ≥1 trial medication dose. Percentage reduction in ADF of focal seizures for lacosamide (116 patients) versus placebo (120 patients) was 3.2% (95% confidence interval = -13.6 to 17.5, p = 0.69). 50% responder rate was 41.4% for lacosamide (116 patients), 37.5% for placebo (120 patients) (p = 0.58). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 44.5% of lacosamide-treated patients (placebo 51.2%).InterpretationAdjunctive lacosamide did not show superior efficacy versus placebo in young children with focal seizures. However, efficacy variables were potentially affected by high variability and low reliability between readers in video-electroencephalogram interpretation. Lacosamide was generally well tolerated; safety profile was acceptable and consistent with that in adults and children aged ≥4 years.

Project description:ObjectiveTo report post hoc results on how adjustments to baseline antiseizure medications (ASMs) in a subset of study sites (10 US sites) from a long-term, open-label phase 3 study of adjunctive cenobamate affected tolerability, efficacy, and retention.MethodsPatients with uncontrolled focal seizures taking stable doses of one to three ASMs were administered increasing doses of cenobamate (12.5, 25, 50, 100, 150, 200 mg/day) over 12 weeks at 2-week intervals (target dose = 200 mg/day). Further increases to 400 mg/day by 50 mg/day biweekly increments were allowed during maintenance phase. Dose adjustments of cenobamate and concomitant ASMs were allowed. Data were assessed until last visit, at data cut-off, on or after September 1, 2019.ResultsA total of 240 patients meeting eligibility criteria were assessed (median [max] exposure 30.2 [43.0] months), with 177 patients continuing cenobamate at data cut-off. Most common baseline concomitant ASMs were lacosamide, levetiracetam, lamotrigine, zonisamide, and clobazam. For most baseline concomitant ASMs, ~70% of patients taking that ASM were continuing cenobamate at data cut-off. Patients continuing cenobamate had greater mean ASM dose reductions and percent dose changes from baseline vs those who discontinued. Of patients continuing cenobamate, 24.6% discontinued one or more concomitant ASMs completely. Dose decreases for all concomitant ASMs generally occurred during titration or early maintenance phases and were mostly due to central nervous system (CNS)-related adverse events such as somnolence, dizziness, unsteady gait, and fatigue. Responder rates from ≥50% through 100% for patients continuing cenobamate were generally similar regardless of concomitant ASMs (of those most commonly taken), with ~81% being ≥50% responders and ~12% achieving 100% seizure reduction in the maintenance phase, which lasted up to 40.2 (median = 29.5) months.SignificanceConcomitant ASM dose reductions were associated with more patients remaining on cenobamate. This is likely due to efficacy and improved tolerability, with overall reduced concomitant drug burden in patients with uncontrolled seizures despite taking one to three baseline concomitant ASMs.

Dataset Information

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

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

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.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets