SUMMARYObjective: Brivaracetam (BRV), a selective and high-affinity synaptic vesicle protein 2A ligand, is in development as adjunctive treatment for partial-onset (focal) seizures (POS). This phase 3 study (N01358; NCT01261325) aimed to confirm the efficacy and safety/tolerability of BRV in adults (≥16-80 years) with POS. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study enrolled patients with uncontrolled POS despite ongoing treatment with 1-2 antiepileptic drugs. Patients exposed to levetiracetam ≤90 days before visit 1 were excluded. Patients entered an 8-week prospective baseline period, followed by a 12-week treatment period when they were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo (PBO), BRV 100 mg/day, or BRV 200 mg/ day, started without up-titration. The co-primary efficacy outcomes were percent reduction over placebo in 28-day adjusted POS frequency, and ≥50% responder rate based on percent reduction in POS frequency from baseline to the treatment period. Results: Seven hundred sixty-eight patients were randomized; 760 were included in the efficacy analysis: 259, 252, and 249 in PBO, BRV 100 mg/day, and BRV 200 mg/day groups, respectively. Percent reduction over PBO in 28-day adjusted seizure frequency (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 22.8% for BRV 100 mg/day (13.3-31.2%; p < 0.001) and 23.2% for BRV 200 mg/day (13.8-31.6%; p < 0.001). The ≥50% responder rate (odds ratio vs. PBO; 95% CI) was 21.6% for PBO, 38.9% for BRV 100 mg/day (2.39; 1.6-3.6; p < 0.001), and 37.8% for BRV 200 mg/day (2.19; 1.5-3.3; p < 0.001). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 155 (59.4%) of 261 PBO patients versus 340 (67.6%) of 503 BRV-treated patients (safety population). Discontinuation rates due to TEAEs were 3.8%, 8.3%, and 6.8% for PBO, BRV 100 mg/day, and BRV 200 mg/day, respectively. Most frequent TEAEs (PBO versus BRV) were somnolence (7.7% vs. 18.1%), dizziness (5.0% vs. 12.3%), and fatigue (3.8% vs. 9.5%). Significance: Adjunctive BRV 100 and 200 mg/day was efficacious in reducing POS in adults without concomitant levetiracetam use and was well tolerated.

No abstract

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

Summary The most common forms of acquired epilepsies arise following acute brain insults such as traumatic brain injury, stroke, or central nervous system infections. Treatment is effective for only 60%‐70% of patients and remains symptomatic despite decades of effort to develop epilepsy prevention therapies. Recent preclinical efforts are focused on likely primary drivers of epileptogenesis, namely inflammation, neuron loss, plasticity, and circuit reorganization. This review suggests a path to identify neuronal and molecular targets for clinical testing of specific hypotheses about epileptogenesis and its prevention or modification. Acquired human epilepsies with different etiologies share some features with animal models. We identify these commonalities and discuss their relevance to the development of successful epilepsy prevention or disease modification strategies. Risk factors for developing epilepsy that appear common to multiple acute injury etiologies include intracranial bleeding, disruption of the blood‐brain barrier, more severe injury, and early seizures within 1 week of injury. In diverse human epilepsies and animal models, seizures appear to propagate within a limbic or thalamocortical/corticocortical network. Common histopathologic features of epilepsy of diverse and mostly focal origin are microglial activation and astrogliosis, heterotopic neurons in the white matter, loss of neurons, and the presence of inflammatory cellular infiltrates. Astrocytes exhibit smaller K+ conductances and lose gap junction coupling in many animal models as well as in sclerotic hippocampi from temporal lobe epilepsy patients. There is increasing evidence that epilepsy can be prevented or aborted in preclinical animal models of acquired epilepsy by interfering with processes that appear common to multiple acute injury etiologies, for example, in post–status epilepticus models of focal epilepsy by transient treatment with a trkB/PLCγ1 inhibitor, isoflurane, or HMGB1 antibodies and by topical administration of adenosine, in the cortical fluid percussion injury model by focal cooling, and in the albumin posttraumatic epilepsy model by losartan. Preclinical studies further highlight the roles of mTOR1 pathways, JAK‐STAT3, IL‐1R/TLR4 signaling, and other inflammatory pathways in the genesis or modulation of epilepsy after brain injury. The wealth of commonalities, diversity of molecular targets identified preclinically, and likely multidimensional nature of epileptogenesis argue for a combinatorial strategy in prevention therapy. Going forward, the identification of impending epilepsy biomarkers to allow better patient selection, together with better alignment with multisite preclinical trials in animal models, should guide the clinical testing of new hypotheses for epileptogenesis and its prevention.

Objective:To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV), a selective, high-affinity ligand for SV2A, for treatment of partial-onset (focal) seizures (POS) in adults.Methods:Data were pooled from patients (aged 16–80 years) with POS uncontrolled by 1 to 2 antiepileptic drugs receiving BRV 50, 100, or 200 mg/d or placebo, without titration, in 3 phase III studies of BRV (NCT00490035, NCT00464269, and NCT01261325, ClinicalTrials.gov, funded by UCB Pharma). The studies had an 8-week baseline and a 12-week treatment period. Patients receiving concomitant levetiracetam were excluded from the efficacy pool.Results:In the efficacy population (n = 1,160), reduction over placebo (95% confidence interval) in baseline-adjusted POS frequency/28 days was 19.5% (8.0%–29.6%) for 50 mg/d (p = 0.0015), 24.4% (16.8%–31.2%) for 100 mg/d (p < 0.00001), and 24.0% (15.3%–31.8%) for 200 mg/d (p < 0.00001). The ≥50% responder rate was 34.2% (50 mg/d, p = 0.0015), 39.5% (100 mg/d, p < 0.00001), and 37.8% (200 mg/d, p = 0.00003) vs 20.3% for placebo (p < 0.01). Across the safety population groups (n = 1,262), 90.0% to 93.9% completed the studies. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 68.0% BRV overall (n = 803) and 62.1% placebo (n = 459). Serious TEAEs were reported by 3.0% (BRV) and 2.8% (placebo); 3 patients receiving BRV and one patient receiving placebo died. TEAEs in ≥5% patients taking BRV (vs placebo) were somnolence (15.2% vs 8.5%), dizziness (11.2% vs 7.2%), headache (9.6% vs 10.2%), and fatigue (8.7% vs 3.7%).Conclusions:Adjunctive BRV was effective and generally well tolerated in adults with POS.Classification of evidence:This analysis provides Class I evidence that adjunctive BRV is effective in reducing POS frequency in adults with epilepsy and uncontrolled seizures.

Epilepsy is one of the most common and disabling chronic neurological disorders. Antiseizure medications (ASMs), previously referred to as anticonvulsant or antiepileptic drugs, are the mainstay of symptomatic epilepsy treatment. Epilepsy is a multifaceted complex disease and so is its treatment. Currently, about 30 ASMs are available for epilepsy therapy. Furthermore, several ASMs are approved therapies in nonepileptic conditions, including neuropathic pain, migraine, bipolar disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder. Because of this wide spectrum of therapeutic activity, ASMs are among the most often prescribed centrally active agents. Most ASMs act by modulation of voltage-gated ion channels; by enhancement of gamma aminobutyric acid-mediated inhibition; through interactions with elements of the synaptic release machinery; by blockade of ionotropic glutamate receptors; or by combinations of these mechanisms. Because of differences in their mechanisms of action, most ASMs do not suppress all types of seizures, so appropriate treatment choices are important. The goal of epilepsy therapy is the complete elimination of seizures; however, this is not achievable in about one-third of patients. Both in vivo and in vitro models of seizures and epilepsy are used to discover ASMs that are more effective in patients with continued drug-resistant seizures. Furthermore, therapies that are specific to epilepsy etiology are being developed. Currently, ~ 30 new compounds with diverse antiseizure mechanisms are in the preclinical or clinical drug development pipeline. Moreover, therapies with potential antiepileptogenic or disease-modifying effects are in preclinical and clinical development. Overall, the world of epilepsy therapy development is changing and evolving in many exciting and important ways. However, while new epilepsy therapies are developed, knowledge of the pharmacokinetics, antiseizure efficacy and spectrum, and adverse effect profiles of currently used ASMs is an essential component of treating epilepsy successfully and maintaining a high quality of life for every patient, particularly those receiving polypharmacy for drug-resistant seizures.

We review adjunctive ketogenic diet (KD) and modified Atkins diet (MAD) treatment of refractory epilepsy in adults. Only a few studies have been published, all open-label. Because of the disparate, uncontrolled nature of the studies, we analyzed all studies individually, without a meta-analysis. Across all studies, 32% of KD-treated and 29% of MAD-treated patients achieved ≥ 50% seizure reduction, including 9% and 5%, respectively, of patients with >90% seizure frequency reduction. The effect persists long term, but, unlike in children, may not outlast treatment. The 3:1 and 4:1 [fat]:[carbohydrate + protein] ratio KD variants and MAD are similarly effective. The anticonvulsant effect occurs quickly with both diets, within days to weeks. Side effects of both diets are benign and similar. The most serious, hyperlipidemia, reverses with treatment discontinuation. The most common, weight loss, may be advantageous in patients with obesity. Potential barriers to large-scale use of both diets in adults include low rate of diet acceptance and high rates of diet discontinuation. The eligible screened/enrolled subject ratios ranged from 2.9 to 7.2. Fifty-one percent of KD-treated and 42% of MAD-treated patients stopped the diet before study completion. Refusal to participate was due to diet restrictiveness and complexity, which may be greater for KD than MAD. However, long-term adherence is low for both diets. Most patients eventually stop the diet because of culinary and social restrictions. For treatment of refractory status epilepticus, only 14 adult cases of KD treatment have been published, providing insufficient data to allow evaluation. In summary, KD and MAD treatment show modest efficacy, although in some patients the effect is remarkable. The diets are well-tolerated, but often discontinued because of their restrictiveness. In patients willing to try dietary treatment, the effect is seen quickly, giving patients the option whether to continue the treatment.

No abstract