Investigating clinical pharmacokinetics of brivaracetam by using a pharmacokinetic modeling approach.

The development of technology and the processing speed of computing machines have facilitated the evaluation of advanced pharmacokinetic (PK) models, making modeling processes simple and faster. The present model aims to analyze the PK of brivaracetam (BRV) in healthy and diseased populations. A comprehensive literature review was conducted to incorporate the BRV plasma concentration data and its input parameters into PK-Sim software, leading to the creation of intravenous (IV) and oral models for both populations. The developed physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model of BRV was then assessed using the visual predictive checks, mean observed/predicted ratios (Robs/pre), and average fold error for PK parameters including the maximum systemic concentration (Cmax), the area under the curve at time 0 to t (AUC0-∞), and drug clearance (CL). The PBPK model of BRV demonstrated that mean Robs/pre ratios of the PK parameters remained within the acceptable limits when assessed against a twofold error margin. Furthermore, model predictions were carried out to assess how AUC0-∞ is affected following the administration of BRV in individuals with varying degrees of liver cirrhosis, ranging from different child-pugh (CP) scores like A, B, and C. Moreover, dose adjustments were recommended by considering the variations in Cmax and CL in various kidney disease stages (mild to severe).

Time-course of drug-related psychiatric and behavioral treatment-emergent adverse events during brivaracetam treatment in adults with focal-onset seizures.

OBJECTIVE: We previously analyzed data from three phase lll trials of adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV) in adults showing that the incidence and prevalence of drug-related central nervous system treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) quickly peaked and decreased over several weeks following BRV treatment initiation. However, that analysis did not assess psychiatric and behavioral side effects which can occur with antiseizure medication (ASM) treatment. Here, we investigate the time-course of psychiatric and behavioral TEAEs by week of BRV treatment and how these TEAEs were managed. METHODS: Data were pooled from three trials (N01252 [NCT00490035]; N01253 [NCT00464269]; N01358 [NCT01261325]) in adult patients (≥16 years of age) with focal-onset seizures receiving BRV adjunctive therapy. This post hoc analysis reports data on the incidence and prevalence of drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs over time in patients who received BRV doses of 50-200 mg/day (without titration) or placebo (PBO) during the 12-week treatment period. A logistic regression model was used to determine if psychiatric or behavioral comorbid conditions were predictors for drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs, or BRV discontinuation due to psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs. RESULTS: A total of 803 patients received BRV 50-200 mg/day, and 459 patients received PBO. Drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs were reported by 11.0 % of patients during adjunctive BRV treatment (PBO: 4.8 %) with onset early after BRV initiation (median time to onset of first drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAE: 15 days). Incidence peaked at week 1 and decreased over the first 4 weeks following BRV initiation. Prevalence peaked at week 4 and then remained stable between weeks 5-12. In an analysis excluding patients on concomitant levetiracetam (BRV: n = 744; PBO: n = 422), the incidence of drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs was similar to the incidence in the overall population. The most common drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs were irritability, insomnia, depression, and anxiety. Only 2 % of patients discontinued BRV due to psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs (PBO: 1.3 %), while most patients on BRV who reported drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs did not require a change in dose (84.1 %; PBO: 63.6 %). A history of psychiatric or behavioral comorbid conditions (not ongoing at BRV initiation) was not associated with an increased likelihood of drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs, or BRV discontinuation due to psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs. Ongoing psychiatric or behavioral comorbid conditions at BRV initiation increased the likelihood of drug-related psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs, but not the likelihood of BRV discontinuation due to psychiatric or behavioral TEAEs. CONCLUSIONS: Drug-related psychiatric and behavioral TEAEs occurred early during BRV treatment, and most patients did not require a change in BRV dose. These data can help guide clinician monitoring and patient expectations after starting BRV.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam in adult Asian patients with uncontrolled focal-onset seizures: A phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV) in adult Asian patients with focal-onset seizures (FOS). METHODS: Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (EP0083; NCT03083665) evaluating BRV 50 mg/day and 200 mg/day in patients (≥16-80 years) with FOS with/without secondary generalization (focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures) despite current treatment with 1 or 2 concomitant antiseizure medications. Following an 8-week baseline, patients were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo, BRV 50 mg/day, or BRV 200 mg/day, and entered a 12-week treatment period. Efficacy outcomes: percent reduction over placebo in 28-day FOS frequency (primary); 50% responder rate in FOS frequency; median percent reduction in FOS frequency from baseline; seizure freedom during treatment period (secondary). Primary safety endpoints: incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); TEAEs leading to discontinuation; serious TEAEs. RESULTS: In this study, 448/449 randomized patients (mean age, 34.5 years; 53.8% female) received ≥1 dose of study medication (placebo/BRV 50 mg/BRV 200 mg/day: n = 149/151/148). Percent reduction over placebo in 28-day adjusted FOS frequency was 24.5% (p = 0.0005) and 33.4% (p < 0.0001) with BRV 50 mg/day and 200 mg/day, respectively, 50% responder rate was 19.0%, 41.1%, and 49.3% with placebo, BRV 50 mg/day, and BRV 200 mg/day, respectively (p < 0.0001 for both BRV groups vs. placebo). Median percent reduction in FOS frequency from baseline was 21.3%/38.9%/46.7% in patients on placebo/BRV 50 mg/BRV 200 mg/day, respectively. Overall, 0, 7 (4.6%), and 10 (6.8%) patients were classified as seizure-free during the treatment period on placebo, BRV 50 mg/day, and BRV 200 mg/day, respectively (p = 0.0146/p = 0.0017 for BRV 50 mg/200 mg/day vs. placebo, respectively). TEAE incidences were similar between patients on placebo (58.4%) and all patients receiving BRV (58.5%); TEAE incidences for BRV 50 mg/day and BRV 200 mg/day were 57.0% and 60.1%, respectively. Overall, 0.7% of patients on placebo and 2.0% of all patients on BRV reported serious TEAEs (incidences for BRV 50 mg/day and BRV 200 mg/day were 1.3% and 2.7%, respectively), 20.1% of patients on placebo and 33.1% of all patients on BRV reported drug-related TEAEs (incidences for BRV 50 mg/day and BRV 200 mg/day were 26.5% and 39.9%, respectively), and 4.7% of patients on placebo and 3.0% of all patients on BRV discontinued due to TEAEs (discontinuation incidences for BRV 50 mg/day and BRV 200 mg/day were 2.6% and 3.4%, respectively). SIGNIFICANCE: Adjunctive BRV was efficacious and well tolerated in adult Asian patients with FOS. Efficacy and safety profiles were consistent with BRV studies in predominantly non-Asian populations. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Brivaracetam is used to treat partial or focal seizures in people with epilepsy. Most studies with brivaracetam tablets have involved people from non-Asian racial backgrounds. In this study, 449 Asian adults with epilepsy took part. One third took 50 mg of brivaracetam, one third took 200 mg of brivaracetam, and one third took a placebo each day for 12 weeks. On average, those who took brivaracetam had fewer seizures than those given the placebo. Most of the side effects were mild and the number and type of side effects seen were as expected for this medication.

Changes in synaptic density in the subacute phase after ischemic stroke: A 11C-UCB-J PET/MR study.

Functional alterations after ischemic stroke have been described with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and perfusion Positron Emission Tomography (PET), but no data on in vivo synaptic changes exist. Recently, imaging of synaptic density became available by targeting synaptic vesicle protein 2 A, a protein ubiquitously expressed in all presynaptic nerve terminals. We hypothesized that in subacute ischemic stroke loss of synaptic density can be evaluated with 11C-UCB-J PET in the ischemic tissue and that alterations in synaptic density can be present in brain regions beyond the ischemic core. We recruited ischemic stroke patients to undergo 11C-UCB-J PET/MR imaging 21 ± 8 days after stroke onset to investigate regional 11C-UCB-J SUVR (standardized uptake value ratio). There was a decrease (but residual signal) of 11C-UCB-J SUVR within the lesion of 16 stroke patients compared to 40 healthy controls (ratiolesion/controls = 0.67 ± 0.28, p = 0.00023). Moreover, 11C-UCB-J SUVR was lower in the non-lesioned tissue of the affected hemisphere compared to the unaffected hemisphere (ΔSUVR = -0.17, p = 0.0035). The contralesional cerebellar hemisphere showed a lower 11C-UCB-J SUVR compared to the ipsilesional cerebellar hemisphere (ΔSUVR = -0.14, p = 0.0048). In 8 out of 16 patients, the asymmetry index suggested crossed cerebellar diaschisis. Future research is required to longitudinally study these changes in synaptic density and their association with outcome.

Preclinical characterization of an intravenous coronavirus 3CL protease inhibitor for the potential treatment of COVID19.

COVID-19 caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has become a global pandemic. 3CL protease is a virally encoded protein that is essential across a broad spectrum of coronaviruses with no close human analogs. PF-00835231, a 3CL protease inhibitor, has exhibited potent in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 as a single agent. Here we report, the design and characterization of a phosphate prodrug PF-07304814 to enable the delivery and projected sustained systemic exposure in human of PF-00835231 to inhibit coronavirus family 3CL protease activity with selectivity over human host protease targets. Furthermore, we show that PF-00835231 has additive/synergistic activity in combination with remdesivir. We present the ADME, safety, in vitro, and in vivo antiviral activity data that supports the clinical evaluation of PF-07304814 as a potential COVID-19 treatment.

Therapeutic Effects of Time-Limited Treatment with Brivaracetam on Posttraumatic Epilepsy after Fluid Percussion Injury in the Rat.

Mounting evidence suggests the synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A (SV2A) targeted by levetiracetam may contribute to epileptogenesis. Levetiracetam has shown anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, neuroprotective, and possible antiepileptogenic effects in brain injury and seizure/epilepsy models, and a phase 2 study has signaled a possible clinical antiepileptogenic effect. Brivaracetam shows greater affinity and specificity for SV2A than levetiracetam and broader preclinical antiseizure effects. Thus, we assessed the antiepileptogenic/disease-modifying potential of brivaracetam in an etiologically realistic rat posttraumatic epilepsy model optimized for efficient drug testing. Brivaracetam delivery protocols were designed to maintain clinical moderate-to-high plasma levels in young (5-week-old) male Sprague-Dawley rats for 4 weeks. Treatment protocols were rapidly screened in 4-week experiments using small groups of animals to ensure against rigorous testing of futile treatment protocols. The antiepileptogenic effects of brivaracetam treatment initiated 30 minutes, 4 hours, and 8 hours after rostral parasagittal fluid percussion injury (rpFPI) were then compared with vehicle-treated controls in a fully powered blind and randomized 16-week validation. Seizures were evaluated by video-electrocorticography using a 5-electrode epidural montage. Endpoint measures included incidence, frequency, duration, and spread of seizures. Group sizes and recording durations were supported by published power analyses. Three months after treatment ended, rats treated with brivaracetam starting at 4 hours post-FPI (the best-performing protocol) experienced a 38% decrease in overall incidence of seizures, 59% decrease in seizure frequency, 67% decrease in time spent seizing, and a 45% decrease in the proportion of spreading seizures that was independent of duration-based seizure definition. Thus, brivaracetam shows both antiepileptogenic and disease-modifying properties after rpFPI. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The rpFPI model, which likely incorporates epileptogenic mechanisms operating after human head injury, can be used to efficiently screen investigational treatment protocols and assess antiepileptogenic/disease-modifying effects. Our studies 1) support a role for SV2A in epileptogenesis, 2) suggest that brivaracetam and other drugs targeting SV2A should be considered for human clinical trials of prevention of post-traumatic epilepsy after head injury, and 3) provide data to inform the design of treatment protocols for clinical trials.

Cannabidiol for the treatment of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome: experts' recommendations for its use in clinical practice in Spain. / Cannabidiol para el tratamiento del síndrome de Lennox-Gastaut y del síndrome de Dravet: recomendaciones de expertos sobre su uso en la práctica clínica en España.

INTRODUCTION: Cannabidiol (CBD) is one of the main components of the cannabis plant that has demonstrated anti-epileptic seizure effect. Following its clinical development, in September 2019 the European Medicines Agency approved its indication for the adjunctive therapy of epileptic seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) and Dravet syndrome (DS), combined with clobazam (CLB), in patients of 2 years of age and older. AIM: To establish recommendations on the use of plant-derived highly purified CBD on which Spanish experts have reached consensus for the treatment of epilepsy in patients with DS and LGS based on their clinical experience and the scientific evidence. DEVELOPMENT: Consensus meeting with the participation of four Spanish neurologists and neuropediatric who are experts in epilepsy secondary to DS and LGS and with clinical experience in the use and management of CBD. They discussed on several topics, including posology (starting dose, dose escalation schema), efficacy (assessment of outcomes and indications for treatment withdrawal), and safety (evaluation, drug-drug interactions, adverse events management). CONCLUSIONS: In order to optimise CBD treatment, a slow dose escalation (= 4 weeks) is recommended until the maximum recommended dose or the desire effect is reached. It is also recommended that the concomitant antiseizure medications (ASMs) be reduced in case of adverse events due to interactions, and that the treatment continues for at least 6 months if it is well tolerated. The efficacy and safety of CBD must be assessed individually, considering the benefits and risks for individual patients.

TITLE: Cannabidiol para el tratamiento del síndrome de Lennox-Gastaut y del síndrome de Dravet: recomendaciones de expertos sobre su uso en la práctica clínica en España.Introducción. El cannabidiol (CBD) es uno de los componentes principales de la planta del cannabis que ha demostrado efecto ante las crisis epilépticas. Tras su desarrollo clínico, obtuvo su aprobación por la Agencia Europea del Medicamento en septiembre de 2019 para el tratamiento de las crisis epilépticas asociadas con el síndrome de Lennox-Gastaut (SLG) y el síndrome de Dravet (SD), en combinación con el clobazam (CLB), en pacientes a partir de los dos años. Objetivo. Establecer unas recomendaciones de manejo del CBD derivado de la planta altamente purificado consensuadas por expertos españoles en el tratamiento de la epilepsia para su uso en pacientes con SD y SLG, basándose en su experiencia clínica y en la evidencia científica. Desarrollo. Reunión de consenso de un grupo de cuatro neurólogos y neuropediatras españoles expertos en el manejo de la epilepsia asociada al SD y el SLG y con experiencia clínica en el uso de CBD. Se debatió sobre diferentes áreas, incluyendo la posología (dosis de inicio, pauta de escalada), la eficacia (valoración de resultados e indicaciones para la suspensión del tratamiento) y la seguridad (evaluación, interacciones entre fármacos, manejo de efectos adversos). Conclusiones. Para optimizar el tratamiento con CBD, se recomienda una pauta lenta de escalada de dosis (de cuatro semanas o más) hasta alcanzar la dosis máxima recomendada o el efecto deseado, reducir los fármacos anticrisis epilépticas concomitantes si aparecen efectos adversos por interacciones y mantener el tratamiento al menos seis meses si se tolera. La eficacia y la seguridad del CBD deben evaluarse de forma individual, considerando el beneficio y el riesgo para cada paciente.

Adjunctive Brivaracetam in Focal Epilepsy: Real-World Evidence from the BRIVAracetam add-on First Italian netwoRk STudy (BRIVAFIRST).

BACKGROUND: In randomized controlled trials, add-on brivaracetam (BRV) reduced seizure frequency in patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Studies performed in a naturalistic setting are a useful complement to characterize the drug profile. OBJECTIVE: This multicentre study assessed the effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive BRV in a large population of patients with focal epilepsy in the context of real-world clinical practice. METHODS: The BRIVAFIRST (BRIVAracetam add-on First Italian netwoRk STudy) was a retrospective, multicentre study including adult patients prescribed adjunctive BRV. Patients with focal epilepsy and 12-month follow-up were considered. Main outcomes included the rates of seizure-freedom, seizure response (≥ 50% reduction in baseline seizure frequency), and treatment discontinuation. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was also considered. Analyses by levetiracetam (LEV) status and concomitant use of strong enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications (EiASMs) and sodium channel blockers (SCBs) were performed. RESULTS: A total of 1029 patients with a median age of 45 years (33-56) was included. At 12 months, 169 (16.4%) patients were seizure-free and 383 (37.2%) were seizure responders. The rate of seizure freedom was 22.3% in LEV-naive patients, 7.1% in patients with prior LEV use and discontinuation due to insufficient efficacy, and 31.2% in patients with prior LEV use and discontinuation due to AEs (p < 0.001); the corresponding values for ≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction were 47.9%, 29.7%, and 42.8% (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in seizure freedom and seizure response rates by use of strong EiASMs. The rates of seizure freedom (20.0% vs. 16.6%;  p = 0.341) and seizure response (39.7% vs. 26.9%; p = 0.006) were higher in patients receiving SCBs than those not receiving SCBs; 265 (25.8%) patients discontinued BRV. AEs were reported by 30.1% of patients, and were less common in patients treated with BRV and concomitant SCBs than those not treated with SCBs (28.9% vs. 39.8%; p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: The BRIVAFIRST provided real-world evidence on the effectiveness of BRV in patients with focal epilepsy irrespective of LEV history and concomitant ASMs, and suggested favourable therapeutic combinations.

Combination therapy with pazopanib and tivantinib modulates VEGF and c-MET levels in refractory advanced solid tumors.

The vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)/VEGFR and hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/c-MET signaling pathways act synergistically to promote angiogenesis. Studies indicate VEGF inhibition leads to increased levels of phosphorylated c-MET, bypassing VEGF-mediated angiogenesis and leading to chemoresistance. We conducted a phase 1 clinical trial with 32 patients with refractory solid tumors to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of combinations of VEGF-targeting pazopanib and the putative c-MET inhibitor ARQ197 (tivantinib) at 5 dose levels (DLs). Patients either took pazopanib and tivantinib from treatment initiation (escalation phase) or pazopanib alone for 7 days, with paired tumor sampling, prior to starting combination treatment (expansion phase). Hypertension was the most common adverse event. No more than 1 dose limiting toxicity (DLT) occurred at any DL, so the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was not determined; DL5 (800 mg pazopanib daily and 360 mg tivantinib BID) was used during the expansion phase. Twenty of 31 evaluable patients achieved stable disease lasting up to 22 cycles. Circulating VEGF, VEGFR2, HGF, and c-MET levels were assessed, and only VEGF levels increased. Tumor c-MET levels (total and phosphorylated) were determined in paired biopsies before and after 7 days of pazopanib treatment. Total intact c-MET decreased in 6 of 7 biopsy pairs, in contrast to previously reported c-MET elevation in response to VEGF inhibition. These results are discussed in the context of our previously reported analysis of epithelial-mesenchymal transition in these tumors.

Phase 1 study of safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of tivantinib in combination with bevacizumab in adult patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: We investigated the combination of tivantinib, a c-MET tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), and bevacizumab, an anti-VEGF-A antibody. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors received bevacizumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks) and escalating doses of tivantinib (120-360 mg orally twice daily). In addition to safety and preliminary efficacy, we evaluated pharmacokinetics of tivantinib and its metabolites, as well as pharmacodynamic biomarkers in peripheral blood and skin. RESULTS: Eleven patients received the combination treatment, which was generally well tolerated. The main dose-limiting toxicity was grade 3 hypertension, which was observed in four patients. Other toxicities included lymphopenia and electrolyte disturbances. No exposure-toxicity relationship was observed for tivantinib or metabolites. No clinical responses were observed. Mean levels of the serum cytokine bFGF increased (p = 0.008) after the bevacizumab-only lead-in and decreased back to baseline (p = 0.047) after addition of tivantinib. Tivantinib reduced levels of both phospho-MET (7/11 patients) and tubulin (4/11 patients) in skin. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of tivantinib and bevacizumab produced toxicities that were largely consistent with the safety profiles of the individual drugs. The study was terminated prior to establishment of the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) due to concerns regarding the mechanism of tivantinib, as well as lack of clinical efficacy seen in this and other studies. Tivantinib reversed the upregulation of bFGF caused by bevacizumab, which has been considered a potential mechanism of resistance to therapies targeting the VEGF pathway. The findings from this study suggest that the mechanism of action of tivantinib in humans may involve inhibition of both c-MET and tubulin expression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01749384 (First posted 12/13/2012).

EP4 receptor agonist L-902688 augments cytotoxic activities of ibrutinib, idelalisib, and venetoclax against chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells.

Treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has significantly improved more recently with the approval of several new agents, including ibrutinib, idelalisib, and venetoclax. Despite the outstanding efficacies observed with these agents, these treatments are sometimes discontinued due to toxicity, unresponsiveness, transformation of the disease and/or resistance. Constitutive NF-κB activation that protects CLL cells from apoptotic stimuli represents one of molecular mechanisms that underlie the emergence of drug resistance. As prostaglandin E (EP)4 receptor agonists have been shown to successfully inhibit the NF-κB pathway in B-cell lymphoma cells, we investigated the potential of the highly specific EP4 receptor agonist L-902688 for the potential treatment of patients with CLL. We show here that low micromolar concentrations of L-902688 can indeed induce selective cytotoxicity towards several B-cell malignancies, including CLL. Moreover, L-902688-mediated activation of the EP4 receptor in patient derived CLL cells resulted in inhibition of the NF-κB pathway, cell proliferation, and induction of apoptosis. Most importantly, we show for the first time that in combination with ibrutinib, idelalisib, or venetoclax, L-902688 induces synergistic cytotoxic activity against patient derived CLL cells. To conclude, the modulation of NF-κB activity by EP4 receptor agonists represents an innovative approach to improve the treatment of patients with CLL. In particular, EP4 receptor agonists appear to represent promising adjuncts to the already existing therapies for patients with CLL due to these promising synergistic activities.

Cost-utility model of brivaracetam in the adjunctive treatment of patients with epilepsy in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the cost utility of Brivaracetam compared with the third-generation anti-epileptic drugs used as standard care. METHODS: A cost utility analysis of Brivaracetam was carried out with other third-generation comparators. The treatment pathway of a hypothetical cohort over a period of 2 years was simulated using the Markov model. Data for effectiveness and the QALYs of each health status for epilepsy, as well as for the disutilities of adverse events of treatments, were analyzed through a studies review. The cost of the anti-epileptics and the use of medical resources linked to the different health statuses were taken into consideration. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed using a Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: Brivaracetam was shown to be the dominant alternative, with Incremental Cost Utility Ratio (ICUR) values from -11,318 for Lacosamide to -128,482 for Zonisamide. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis validates these results. The ICUR sensitivity is greater for increases in the price of Brivaracetam than for decreases, and for Eslicarbizapine over the other adjunctives considered in the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with Brivaracetam resulted in cost effective and incremental quality adjusted life years come at an acceptable cost.

Intravenous brivaracetam for the management of refractory focal non-convulsive status epilepticus.

Diagnosis and management of status epilepticus (SE), including non-convulsive status epilepticus (NCSE), is challenging, with a reported 30%-50% of epilepticus patients not responding to available antiseizure medications (ASMs). Injectable benzodiazepines, fosphenytoin, valproate, levetiracetam, lacosamide and phenobarbital are commonly used for treating SE. Brivaracetam, a new ASM, with higher affinity and greater selectivity for the synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A than levetiracetam, has been approved as monotherapy or adjunct for treatment of focal onset seizures. Brivaracetam may have a role in the management of SE. However, limited data exist on brivaracetam's efficacy in SE. We describe a patient case with focal NCSE refractory to levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, lacosamide and valproate who demonstrated clinical and electrographic improvement on continuous electroencephalography monitoring after brivaracetam administration.

Rapidity of CNS Effect on Photoparoxysmal Response for Brivaracetam vs. Levetiracetam: A Randomized, Double-blind, Crossover Trial in Photosensitive Epilepsy Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Both levetiracetam (LEV) and brivaracetam (BRV) eliminate the electroencephalogram photoparoxysmal response (PPR) in the human phase IIa photosensitivity model of epilepsy. The physiochemical properties of BRV differ from those of LEV, having higher potency and lipophilicity plus 10- to 15-fold greater affinity for synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A. OBJECTIVE: We compared the rapidity of the effects of both drugs in the central nervous system (CNS) of patients with photosensitive epilepsy using time to PPR elimination post-intravenous infusion as a pharmacodynamic endpoint. METHODS: Using a randomized, double-blind, two-period, balanced, crossover design, we tested patients with photosensitive epilepsy with equipotent milligram doses of intravenous LEV 1500 mg versus BRV 100 mg post-15-min intravenous infusion (part 1) and post-5-min intravenous infusion (part 2, same doses). Eight patients per part were deemed sufficient with 80% power to determine a 70% reduction for intravenous BRV:LEV intrapatient time ratio to PPR elimination, with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. Plasma antiseizure medicine concentrations were measured using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. RESULTS: Nine patients [six women; mean age 27.8 years (range 18-42)] completed the study; seven of these participated in both parts 1 and 2. In 31 of 32 instances, patients experienced PPR elimination. In mixed-effects model time analysis, BRV eliminated PPRs more quickly than did LEV (median 2 vs. 7.5 min, respectively). However, no statistically significant difference in BRV:LEV time ratio to PPR elimination was observed for two of our multiple primary outcomes: for the 15-min infusion alone (p = 0.22) or the 5-min infusion alone (p = 0.11). However, BRV was faster when we excluded an outlier patient in part 1 (p = 0.0016). For our remaining primary outcome, parts 1 and 2 data combined, the median intrapatient BRV:LEV time ratio was 0.39 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16-0.91], i.e., PPR elimination was 61% faster with BRV, p = 0.039. PPR was completely eliminated in ≤ 2 min in 11 patients with BRV and in four patients with LEV. No period or carryover effects were seen. No serious or severe adverse effects occurred. At PPR elimination (n = 16), median plasma [BRV] was 250 ng/mL (range 30-4100) and median plasma [LEV] was 28.35 µg/mL (range 1-86.7). CONCLUSION: Outcome studies directly comparing LEV and BRV are needed to define the clinical utility of the response with BRV, which was several minutes faster than that with LEV. CLINICAL TRIALS: ClinTrials.gov Identifier = NCT03580707; registered 07-09-18.

Brivaracetam for the treatment of focal-onset seizures: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluations.

INTRODUCTION: The goal of pharmacologic therapy with antiseizure medications (ASMs) is to achieve a seizure-free state with minimal side effects. About one third of patients treated with available ASMs continue to experience uncontrolled seizures. There is still need for new ASMs with enhanced effectiveness and tolerability. AREAS COVERED: The present manuscript is based on an extensive Internet and PubMed search from 1999 to 2020. It is focused on the clinical and pharmacological properties of brivaracetam (BRV) in the treatment of epilepsy. EXPERT OPINION: BRV is approved as add-on or monotherapy (in US) for the treatment of focal-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization. BRV is a high affinity synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A ligand, with 15-30-fold higher affinity than levetiracetam. The selectivity of BRV may be associated with fewer clinical adverse effects. BRV shares many of the pharmacokinetic characteristics of an ideal ASMs. Additionally, BRV has a low potential for clinically relevant drug-drug interactions. Its pharmacokinetic profile makes BRV a promising agent for the treatment of status epilepticus (SE). Although BRV is not approved for the treatment of SE, it has demonstrated promising preliminary results. Further studies are needed to explore the efficacy and tolerability of BRV in SE.

Long-term safety and efficacy of brivaracetam in adults with focal seizures: Results from an open-label, multinational, follow-up trial.

BACKGROUND: This long-term follow-up (LTFU) trial was conducted to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) at individualized doses (maximum of 200 mg/day) in patients with focal seizures. The secondary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of BRV over time. METHODS: Two Phase III, randomized, double-blind, historical-controlled conversion-to-monotherapy trials (N01276: NCT00698581; N01306: NCT00699283) were conducted in patients aged ≥16 years with uncontrolled focal seizures. Patients who completed either of these core trials or who met a protocol-defined exit criterion could enter this LTFU trial (N01315; NCT00761774). Patients entered LTFU at a recommended BRV dose of 100 mg/day, with flexible dosing of 50-200 mg/day, as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy; additional AEDs could be prescribed and adapted in dose if clinically indicated. Safety variables included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Efficacy variables included duration of continuous monotherapy, reduction in focal seizure frequency and seizure freedom. Safety and efficacy variables were assessed for all patients in the safety set or efficacy set, respectively, regardless of BRV treatment regimen. In addition, a post hoc subgroup analysis was conducted for patients who completed the BRV monotherapy period in either core trial, and entered the LTFU on BRV monotherapy. For this subgroup, TEAEs were summarized by 3-month time intervals over the first 12 months of LTFU. RESULTS: 108 patients were enrolled in the LTFU trial between November 2008 and February 2010. 79 (73.1 %) patients discontinued the LTFU trial, most commonly due to lack of efficacy [37 (34.3 %)] and adverse events [16 (14.8 %)]. At core trial baseline, patients had a median of 6.3 focal seizures/28 days and 53 (49.1 %) had failed ≥5 previous lifetime AEDs. During LTFU, 70 (64.8 %) patients had ≥12 months and 56 (51.9 %) patients had ≥24 months of BRV treatment. TEAEs were reported by 98 (90.7 %) patients; most commonly (≥15 % of patients) convulsion (17.6 %), nasopharyngitis (17.6 %), depression (16.7 %) and fatigue (15.7 %). Median percent reduction from baseline in focal seizure frequency/28 days was 56.8 %. Among 86 patients who completed at least 6 months of treatment, 29 (33.7 %) patients were seizure-free for ≥6 months and 22 (25.6 %) were seizure-free for ≥12 months. 50/108 patients were included in the BRV monotherapy subgroup; 33/50 (66.0 %) patients reported a TEAE in the core trials, while 26/50 (52.0 %), 15/37 (40.5 %), 14/33 (42.4 %) and 9/27 (33.3 %) patients reported any TEAE during LTFU months 1-3, 4-6, 7-9 and 10-12, respectively. In the BRV monotherapy subgroup, the most common TEAEs (≥5% of patients) during LTFU months 1-3 were fatigue [3/50 (6.0 %)] and dizziness [3/50 (6.0 %)]. INTERPRETATION: Results from the LTFU trial support the long-term safety of BRV at individualized doses of up to 200 mg/day as a well-tolerated, and effective treatment for patients with focal seizures. Efficacy analyses indicate that seizure reductions with brivaracetam were generally maintained over time.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study of tivantinib in Japanese patients with MET-high hepatocellular carcinoma.

A previous randomized phase 2 study of hepatocellular carcinoma revealed that the c-Met inhibitor tivantinib as second-line treatment significantly prolonged progression-free survival in a subpopulation whose tumor samples highly expressed c-Met (MET-high). Accordingly, this phase 3 study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of tivantinib as a second-line treatment for Japanese patients with MET-high hepatocellular carcinoma. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted at 60 centers in Japan. Hepatocellular carcinoma patients with one prior sorafenib treatment and those with MET-high tumor samples were eligible for inclusion. Registered patients were randomly assigned to either the tivantinib or placebo group at a 2:1 ratio and were treated with twice-a-day oral tivantinib (120 mg bid) or placebo until the discontinuation criteria were met. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival while the secondary endpoints included overall survival and safety. Between January 2014 and June 2016, 386 patients provided consent, and 195 patients were randomized to the tivantinib (n = 134) or placebo (n = 61) group. Median progression-free survival was 2.8 (95% confidence interval: 2.7-2.9) and 2.3 (1.5-2.8) mo in the tivantinib and placebo groups, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.74, 95% confidence interval: 0.52-1.04, P = .082). Median overall survival was 10.3 (95% confidence interval: 8.1-11.6) and 8.5 (6.2-11.4) mo in the tivantinib and placebo group, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.82, 95% confidence interval: 0.58-1.15). The most common tivantinib-related grade ≥3 adverse events were neutropenia (31.6%), leukocytopenia (24.8%), and anemia (12.0%). This study did not confirm the significant efficacy of tivantinib as a second-line treatment for Japanese patients with MET-high hepatocellular carcinoma. (NCT02029157).

A systematic review and indirect treatment comparison of perampanel versus brivaracetam as adjunctive therapy in patients with focal-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization.

PURPOSE: To date, there has not been a single randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted to directly compare the efficacy and safety of perampanel to brivaracetam in the adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures. This study makes these comparisons through the use of indirect treatment comparison (ITC) methods. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify RCTs that evaluated either one of perampanel or brivaracetam in the treatment of patients with focal-onset seizures. The Bucher ITC method was then used to compare efficacy and safety outcomes between perampanel and brivaracetam. Additional subgroup analyses, by levetiracetam usage (prior or concomitant), were conducted. RESULTS: Eight RCTs (four comparing perampanel to placebo, four comparing brivaracetam to placebo) were included in the ITC. For patients taking concomitant levetiracetam, perampanel showed a significantly better responder rate compared to brivaracetam [relative risk (RR) and 95 % confidence interval (CI): 2.62 (1.15, 5.99)]. For patients who had previously, or never, taken levetiracetam, there was no difference in the responder rate. In the overall population, both perampanel and brivaracetam were more effective than placebo in terms of responder rate, seizure freedom, and secondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizure responder rate; however, for these outcomes, no evidence of a difference between perampanel and brivaracetam was found. Patients taking brivaracetam showed significantly less dizziness compared to patients taking perampanel. No differences for any other safety outcome were found. CONCLUSION: Perampanel and brivaracetam are effective for the adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures and display similar adverse event profiles. Perampanel demonstrated an improved focal-onset seizure responder rate compared to brivaracetam in patients taking concomitant levetiracetam. This may be due to the similarity in the mechanism of action between brivaracetam and levetiracetam.