Brivaracetam effectiveness and tolerability in older and younger adults with epilepsy: EXPERIENCE, a pooled analysis of international data from retrospective studies.

This analysis assessed the effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in older (≥65 years of age) and younger (≥16 to <65 years of age) adults with epilepsy. This was a subgroup analysis from EXPERIENCE/EPD332, a pooled analysis of individual patient records from multiple independent, non-interventional studies of patients with epilepsy starting BRV in Australia, Europe, and the United States. Included patients had ≥6 months of follow-up data. Outcomes included responders (≥50 % reduction from baseline in seizure frequency), seizure freedom (no seizures within 3 months before the time point), and continuous seizure freedom (no seizures from baseline) at 12 months; BRV discontinuation during the whole study follow-up; and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Patients with missing data after BRV discontinuation were deemed non-responders/not seizure-free. Analysis populations included the Full Analysis Set (FAS; patients who received ≥1 BRV dose and had seizure type and age documented at baseline) and the modified FAS (FAS patients who had ≥1 seizure recorded during baseline). The FAS was used for all outcomes except seizure reduction. The FAS included 147 (8.9 %) patients aged ≥65 years and 1497 (91.1 %) aged ≥16 to <65 years. Compared with the younger subgroup, patients aged ≥65 years had a longer median epilepsy duration (33.0 years [n = 144] vs 17.0 years [n = 1460]) and lower median seizure frequency at index (2.0 seizures/28 days [n = 129] vs 4.0 seizures/28 days [n = 1256]), and less commonly had >1 prior antiseizure medication (106/141 [75.2 %] vs 1265/1479 [85.5 %]). At 12 months, a numerically higher percentage of patients aged ≥65 years versus the younger subgroup achieved ≥50 % seizure reduction (46.5 % [n = 71] vs 36.0 % [n = 751]), seizure freedom (26.0 % [n = 100] vs 13.9 % [n = 1011]), and continuous seizure freedom (22.0 % [n = 100] vs 10.7 % [n = 1011]). During the whole study follow-up, 43/147 (29.3 %) patients aged ≥65 years and 508/1492 (34.0 %) aged ≥16 to <65 years discontinued BRV. The incidence of TEAEs since the prior visit was similar in both subgroups at 3 months (≥65 years vs ≥16 to <65 years: 38/138 [27.5 %] vs 356/1404 [25.4 %]), 6 months (19/119 [16.0 %] vs 176/1257 [14.0 %]), and 12 months (8/104 [7.7 %] vs 107/1128 [9.5 %]). This real-world analysis suggests BRV was effective in patients aged ≥65 years and ≥16 to <65 years, with numerically higher effectiveness in the older subgroup. BRV was well tolerated in both subgroups.

Cognitive phenotypes in patients with drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy: Relationships with cortisol and affectivity.

OBJECTIVE: Drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) is a neurological disorder characterized by cognitive deficits. This study examined whether patients with TLE and different cognitive phenotypes differ in cortisol levels and affectivity while controlling for demographic and clinical variables. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 79 adults with TLE underwent neuropsychological evaluation in which memory, language, attention/processing speed, executive function, and affectivity were assessed. Six saliva samples were collected in the afternoon to examine the ability of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis to descend according to the circadian rhythm (C1 to C6). The cortisol area under the curve concerning ground (AUCg) was computed to examine global cortisol secretion. RESULTS: Three cognitive phenotypes were identified: memory impairment, generalized impairment, and no impairment. The memory-impairment phenotype showed higher cortisol levels at C4, C5, and C6 than the other groups (p = 0.03, η2 = 0.06), higher cortisol AUCg than the generalized-impairment phenotype (p = 0.004, η2 = 0.14), and a significant reduction in positive affectivity after the evaluation (p = 0.026, η2 = 0.11). Higher cortisol AUCg and reductions in positive affectivity were significant predictors of the memory-impairment phenotype (p < 0.001; Cox and Snell R2 = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with memory impairment had a slower decline in cortisol levels in the afternoon, which could be interpreted as an inability of the HPA axis to inhibit itself. Thus, chronic stress may influence hippocampus-dependent cognitive function more than other cognitive functions in patients with TLE.

Therapeutic strategies during cenobamate treatment initiation: Delphi panel recommendations.

The goal of epilepsy treatment is seizure freedom, typically with antiseizure medication (ASM). If patients fail to attain seizure control despite two trials of appropriately chosen ASMs at adequate doses, they are classified as having drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). Adverse events (AEs) commonly occur in people with DRE because they are typically on ⩾2 ASMs, increasing the potential for drug-drug interactions. Early emerging AEs may impact adherence, decrease quality of life, and delay achieving optimal treatment dosages. Cenobamate is an oral ASM with a long half-life which has proven to be highly effective in clinical trials. An international Delphi panel of expert epileptologists experienced in the clinical use of cenobamate and other ASMs was convened to develop consensus best practices for managing patients during and after cenobamate titration, with consideration for its known pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions, to allow patients to reach the most appropriate cenobamate dose while limiting tolerability issues. The modified Delphi process included one open-ended questionnaire and one virtual face-to-face meeting. Participants agreed that cenobamate can be prescribed for most patients experiencing focal-onset seizures. Patients initiating cenobamate therapy should have access to healthcare professionals as needed and their treatment response should be evaluated at the 100-mg dose. Patients with intellectual disabilities may need additional support to navigate the titration period. Proactive down-titration or withdrawal of sodium channel blockers (SCBs) is recommended when concomitant ASM regimens include ⩾2 SCBs. When applicable, maintaining a concomitant clobazam dose at ~5-10 mg may be beneficial. Patients taking oral contraceptives, newer oral anticoagulants, or HIV antiretroviral medications should be monitored for potential interactions. Because clinical evidence informing treatment decisions is limited, guidance regarding dose adjustments of non-ASM drugs was not developed beyond specific recommendations presented in the Summary of Product Characteristics.

Spanish consensus on the management of concomitant antiseizure medications when using cenobamate in adults with drug-resistant focal seizures.

OBJECTIVE: Cenobamate is an antiseizure medication (ASM) associated with high rates of seizure freedom and acceptable tolerability in patients with focal seizures. To achieve the optimal cenobamate dose for maximal potential effectiveness while avoiding or minimizing drug-related adverse events (AEs), the administration of cenobamate with other ASMs must be managed through concomitant ASM load reduction. A panel of Spanish epilepsy experts aimed to provide a Spanish consensus on how to adjust the dose of concomitant ASMs in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) in order to improve the effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive cenobamate. METHODS: A three-stage modified Delphi consensus process was undertaken, including six Spanish epileptologists with extensive experience using cenobamate. Based on current literature and their own expert opinion, the expert panel reached a consensus on when and how to adjust the dosage of concomitant ASMs during cenobamate titration. RESULTS: The expert panel agreed that tailored titration and close follow-up are required to achieve the best efficacy and tolerability when initiating cenobamate in patients receiving concomitant ASMs. When concomitant clobazam, phenytoin, phenobarbital, and sodium channel blockers are taken at high dosages, or when the patient is receiving two or more sodium channel blockers, dosages should be proactively lowered during the cenobamate titration period. Other concomitant ASMs should be reduced only if the patient reports a moderate/severe AE at any stage of the titration period. SIGNIFICANCE: Cenobamate is an effective ASM with a dose-dependent effect. To maximize effectiveness while maintaining the best tolerability profile, co-medication management is needed. The recommendations included herein provide practical guidance for proactive and reactive management of co-medication in cenobamate-treated patients with DRE and a high drug load. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Patients with epilepsy may continue to have seizures even after treatment with several different antiseizure medications (ASMs). Cenobamate is an ASM that can reduce seizures in these patients. In this study, six Spanish experts in epilepsy discussed the best way to use cenobamate in drug-resistant epilepsy. They provide practical guidance on when and how the dose of other ASMs might be adjusted to reduce side effects and optimize the use of cenobamate.

Perampanel for Treatment of People with a Range of Epilepsy Aetiologies in Clinical Practice: Evidence from the PERMIT Extension Study.

INTRODUCTION: It is important to assess the effectiveness of an antiseizure medication in treating different epilepsy aetiologies to optimise individualised therapeutic approaches. Data from the PERaMpanel pooled analysIs of effecTiveness and tolerability (PERMIT) Extension study were used to assess the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of perampanel (PER) when used to treat individuals with a range of epilepsy aetiologies in clinical practice. METHODS: A post hoc analysis was conducted of PERMIT Extension data from individuals with a known aetiology. Retention was assessed after 3, 6 and 12 months. Effectiveness was assessed after 3, 6 and 12 months and at the last visit (last observation carried forward). Effectiveness assessments included responder rate (≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction) and seizure freedom rate (no seizures since at least the prior visit). Safety/tolerability was assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and AEs leading to discontinuation. RESULTS: PERMIT Extension included 1945 individuals with structural aetiology, 1012 with genetic aetiology, 93 with an infectious aetiology, and 26 with an immune aetiology. Retention rates at 12 months were 61.1% (structural), 65.9% (genetic), 56.8% (infectious) and 56.5% (immune). At the last visit, responder rates (total seizures) were 43.3% (structural), 68.3% (genetic), 37.0% (infectious) and 20.0% (immune), and corresponding seizure freedom rates were 15.8%, 46.5%, 11.1% and 5.0%, respectively. AE incidence rates were 58.0% (structural), 46.5% (genetic), 51.1% (infectious) and 65.0% (immune), and corresponding rates of discontinuation due to AEs over 12 months were 18.9%, 16.4%, 18.5% and 21.7%, respectively. The types of AEs reported were generally consistent across aetiology subgroups, with no idiosyncratic AEs emerging. CONCLUSION: Although PER was effective and generally well tolerated when used to treat individuals with a range of epilepsy aetiologies in clinical practice, variability in its effectiveness and tolerability across the subgroups indicates that PER may be particularly useful for individuals with specific epilepsy aetiologies.

Perampanel for the treatment of epilepsy with genetic aetiology: Real-world evidence from the PERMIT Extension study.

Genetic factors contribute to the aetiology of epilepsy in >50% of cases, and information on the use of antiseizure medications in people with specific aetiologies will help guide treatment decisions. The PERMIT Extension study pooled data from two real-world studies (PERMIT and PROVE) to investigate the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of perampanel (PER) when used to treat people with focal and generalised epilepsy in everyday clinical practice. This post-hoc analysis of PERMIT Extension explored the use of PER when used to treat individuals presumed to have epilepsy with a genetic aetiology. Assessments included retention rate (evaluated at 3, 6 and 12 months), effectiveness (responder and seizure freedom rates; evaluated at 3, 6, 12 months and the last visit [last observation carried forward) and tolerability (adverse events [AEs]). Of the 6822 people with epilepsy included in PERMIT Extension, 1012 were presumed to have a genetic aetiology. The most common genetic aetiologies were idiopathic generalised epilepsy (IGE; 58.2%), tuberous sclerosis (1.1%), Dravet syndrome (0.8%) and genetic epilepsy with febrile seizures plus (GEFS+; 0.5%). Retention rates at 3, 6 and 12 months in the total genetic aetiology population were 89.3%, 79.7% and 65.9%, respectively. In the total genetic aetiology population, responder rates at 12 months and the last visit were 74.8% and 68.3%, respectively, and corresponding seizure freedom rates were 48.9% and 46.5%, respectively. For the specific aetiology subgroups, responder rates at 12 months and the last visit were, respectively: 90.4% and 84.4% (IGE), 100% and 57.1% (tuberous sclerosis), 100% and 71.4% (Dravet syndrome), and 33.3% and 20.0% (GEFS+). Corresponding seizure freedom rates were, respectively: 73.1% and 64.6% (IGE), 33.3% and 22.2% (tuberous sclerosis), 20.0% and 28.6% (Dravet syndrome), and 0% and 0% (GEFS+). The incidence of AEs was 46.5% for the total genetic aetiology population, 48.8% for IGE, 27.3% for tuberous sclerosis, 62.5% for Dravet syndrome, and 20% for GEFS+. Tolerability findings were consistent with PER's known safety profile. PER was effective and generally well tolerated when used in individuals with a presumed genetic epilepsy aetiology in clinical practice. PER was effective across a wide range of genetic aetiologies.

Effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam in patients with epilepsy stratified by comorbidities and etiology in the real world: 12-month subgroup data from the international EXPERIENCE pooled analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in adults with epilepsy by specific comorbidities and epilepsy etiologies. METHODS: EXPERIENCE/EPD332 was a pooled analysis of individual patient records from several non-interventional studies of patients with epilepsy initiating BRV in clinical practice. Outcomes included ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in seizure frequency, seizure freedom (no seizures within prior 3 months), continuous seizure freedom (no seizures since baseline), BRV discontinuation, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Analyses were performed for all adult patients (≥ 16 years of age) and stratified by comorbidity and by etiology at baseline (patients with cognitive/learning disability [CLD], psychiatric comorbidity, post-stroke epilepsy, brain tumor-related epilepsy [BTRE], and traumatic brain injury-related epilepsy [TBIE]). RESULTS: At 12 months, ≥ 50% seizure reduction was achieved in 35.6% (n = 264), 38.7% (n = 310), 41.7% (n = 24), 34.1% (n = 41), and 50.0% (n = 28) of patients with CLD, psychiatric comorbidity, post-stroke epilepsy, BTRE, and TBIE, respectively; and continuous seizure freedom was achieved in 5.7% (n = 318), 13.7% (n = 424), 29.4% (n = 34), 11.4% (n = 44), and 13.8% (n = 29), respectively. During the study follow-up, in patients with CLD, psychiatric comorbidity, post-stroke epilepsy, BTRE, and TBIE, 37.1% (n = 403), 30.7% (n = 605), 33.3% (n = 51), 39.7% (n = 68), and 27.1% (n = 49) of patients discontinued BRV, respectively; and TEAEs since prior visit at 12 months were reported in 11.3% (n = 283), 10.0% (n = 410), 16.7% (n = 36), 12.5% (n = 48), and 3.0% (n = 33), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: BRV as prescribed in the real world is effective and well tolerated among patients with CLD, psychiatric comorbidity, post-stroke epilepsy, BTRE, and TBIE.

Prospective study of cenobamate on cognition, affectivity, and quality of life in focal epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: Cenobamate is a recently approved antiseizure medication that proved to be safe and effective in randomized controlled trials. However, little is known about its impact on some areas frequently affected by epilepsy. For this reason, we explored the effects of cenobamate on cognitive performance, as well as on negative affectivity and quality of life in a sample of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. METHODS: Two prospective cohort studies were carried out. In Study 1, 32 patients (22 men and 10 women) underwent a baseline (T0) and a short-term (T1) neuropsychological assessment after 3 months of cenobamate administration. In Study 2, 22 patients (16 men and 6 women) from the T1 sample also underwent a baseline and a follow-up evaluation (T2) 6 months after T0. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in cognitive variables, negative affectivity, and quality of life either in Study 1 or Study 2. Similarly, based on the reliable change index, it was found that most patients showed no changes in these variables. SIGNIFICANCE: These results suggest that cenobamate is a safe antiseizure medication in terms of cognition, negative affectivity, or quality of life since no adverse events have been found after 3 and 6 months of treatment. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Cenobamate is a new antiseizure medication. In patients with epilepsy, cenobamate seems to not affect cognition, anxiety, depression, or quality of life.

Impact of antiseizure medication with a very long half-life on long term video-EEG monitoring in focal epilepsy.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of antiseizure medications (ASMs) with a very long half-life on long term video-EEG monitoring (LTM) in people with focal epilepsy (FE). METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we searched our local database for people with FE who underwent ASM reduction during LTM at the University Hospital of 'La Fe', Valencia, from January 2013 to December 2019. Taking into account the half-life of the ASM, people with FE were divided into two groups: Group A contained individuals who were taking at least one ASM with a very long half-life at admission, and Group B consisted of those not taking very long half-life ASMs. Using multivariable analysis to control for important confounders, we compared the following outcomes between both groups: seizure rates per day, time to first seizure, and LTM duration. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy individuals were included in the study (154 in Group A and 216 in Group B). The median recorded seizure rates (1.3 seizures/day, range 0-15.3 vs.1.3 seizures/day, range 0-9.3, p-value=0.68), median time to the first seizure (24 h, range 2-119 vs. 24 h, range 2-100, p-value=0.92), and median LTM duration (4 days, range 2-5 vs. 4 days, range 2-5, p-value=0.94) were similar in both groups. Multivariable analysis did not reveal any significant differences in the three outcomes between the two groups (all p-values>0.05). CONCLUSION: ASMs with a very long half-life taken as co-medication do not significantly affect important LTM outcomes, including recorded seizure rates, time to the first seizure, or LTM duration. Therefore, in general, there is no need to discontinue ASMs with a very long half-life prior to LTM.

Impact of Polytherapy on Memory Functioning in Patients With Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: The Role of Attention and Executive Functions.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to examine the effect of polytherapy (i.e., the number of administered anti-seizure medications (ASMs)) on memory, and whether the interaction between the number of ASMs and attentional/executive functioning affect presurgical memory functioning and postsurgical memory changes in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. METHODS: Two studies were carried out. Study 1 consisted of a presurgical assessment of 125 adult patients, in which attention/executive function (EpiTrack screening tool) and memory were assessed (cross-sectional study). Of them, 72 patients underwent a second postsurgical evaluation, in which memory was assessed (Study 2). Patients were distributed into groups based on EpiTrack performance and number of ASMs. RESULTS: The interaction between the number of ASMs and the attentional/executive functioning significantly affected presurgical memory, with patients with impaired EpiTrack performance taking three-four ASMs having poorer scores than patients with intact EpiTrack performance taking three-four ASMs (for all, p < .0001). This interaction also affected postsurgical memory changes, with patients with impaired Epitrack performance taking three-four ASMs having higher postsurgical decline than those with intact Epitrack performance taking three-four ASMs (for all, p < .005). No differences were found in patients taking two ASMs. Furthermore, the number of ASMs was associated with presurgical memory performance and postsurgical memory changes only in patients with impaired EpiTrack performance (for all, p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underline the utility of EpiTrack, together with the clinical information on the number of prescribed ASMs, to corroborate the impact of polytherapy on memory and to optimize the prediction of postsurgical memory changes.

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.

Clinical and economic implications of epilepsy management across treatment lines in Spain: a real-life database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a chronic brain disease characterized by recurrent seizures. We investigated real-world management of epilepsy across treatment lines in Spain, including healthcare resource use (HRU) and associated costs. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of real-life data from epilepsy patients prescribed antiseizure medication (ASM) between January 2016 and December 2021. Patients were grouped according to their line of treatment (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th +) during the recruitment period. Demographic and clinical characteristics, comorbidities and concomitant medications were analyzed during the baseline period (6 months before starting treatment line); antiepileptic treatments, concomitant medications, HRU and associated costs were analyzed during follow-up. RESULTS: The study included 5006 patients. Treatment duration decreased as treatment lines progressed (mean ± SD progression time: 523.2 ± 279.1 days from 1st to 2nd line, 351.6 ± 194.4 days from 2nd to 3rd line; 272.7 ± 139.3 days from 3rd to 4th + line). Significant HRU differences were found with subsequent treatment lines, including an increase in hospital admissions and patients on sick leave. Mean (95% CI) adjusted total costs per patient were €2974/year (2773-3175) in the 1st line and €5735/year (5043-6428) in the 4th + line. There was an increase in adjusted direct and total costs with subsequent treatment lines; the mean difference in total costs between cohorts was €2761 (p < 0.001). The highest direct costs were associated with epilepsy medication, days at the hospital and specialist visits. CONCLUSION: Our data revealed a progressive increase in the use of resources and associated costs across subsequent epilepsy treatment lines.

Effectiveness, safety and tolerability of perampanel by age group when used to treat people with focal and generalized epilepsy in clinical practice: The PERMIT Extension study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of perampanel (PER) in people with epilepsy (PWE) treated in everyday clinical practice for focal and generalized seizures, both in the total cohort and by age group. METHODS: The PERMIT Extension study was a pooled analysis of data from PWE included in two large previous clinical practice studies (PERMIT and PROVE). Retention was assessed over 12 months. Effectiveness was assessed based on total seizures and by seizure type (focal and generalized) after 3, 6, and 12 months of PER treatment and at final follow-up (last observation carried forward; "last visit"); assessments included responder rate (≥50% seizure frequency reduction from baseline) and seizure freedom rate (no seizures since at least the previous visit). Safety/tolerability was assessed throughout PER treatment by evaluating adverse events (AEs). All assessments were conducted for the total population and by age category (<12, ≥12 to <18, ≥18 to <65, and ≥65 years at baseline). RESULTS: Full Analysis Set included 6,822 PWE (51.1% female; mean age, 36.9 years; mean duration of epilepsy 21.4 years) with 6,433, 4,648, and 6,233 PWE assessed for retention, effectiveness, and safety/tolerability, respectively. The majority of PWE (81.1%) were aged 18-64 at baseline, with 4.5% aged <12 years, 8.4% aged 12-17 years, and 5.9% aged ≥65 years. In the overall population, retention rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 88.0%, 77.6%, and 61.4%, respectively; responder rates at 12 months were 58.5% for total seizures, 54.6% for focal seizures, and 77.7% for generalized seizures, and corresponding seizure freedom rates were 23.6%, 19.0%, and 51.3%, respectively. PER was effective regardless of age category, although effectiveness was greatest in PWE aged ≥65 years, for both focal and generalized seizures. In the overall population, the incidence of AEs was 49.2% and the most frequent AEs (≥5% of PWE) were dizziness/vertigo (13.4%), somnolence (8.8%), irritability (7.3%), and behavioral disorders (5.3%); AEs led to treatment discontinuation in 18.3% of PWE over 12 months. The incidence of AEs and the discontinuation rate due to AEs increased with increasing age (55.0% and 23.9%, respectively, in PWE aged ≥65 years). CONCLUSION: In this study, the largest pooled analysis of PER clinical practice data conducted to date, PER was shown to be effective and generally well tolerated when used to treat people with focal or generalized epilepsy in everyday clinical practice, regardless of age category. No new or unexpected side effects emerged following long-term use in the real-world setting.

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.

Stress phenotypes in epilepsy: impact on cognitive functioning and quality of life.

Introduction: Drug-resistant epilepsy has been proposed as a chronic stress model. Stress can be measured in terms of chronicity (epilepsy duration) and intensity (comorbidities), with depression and anxiety among the most important comorbidities in epilepsy due to its prevalence and its relationship with cognitive functioning and quality of life. This study aims to establish phenotypes according to how patients face a stressful condition (epilepsy) and examine differences in cognition and quality of life depending on these phenotypes. We hypothesize that there will be an interrelationship between epilepsy duration and negative affectivity, and these variables will influence cognition and quality of life. Methods: 170 patients (82 men and 88 women) underwent a neuropsychological evaluation in which trait anxiety, depression, attention and executive function, verbal and visual memory, language, emotional recognition, and quality of life were assessed. Hierarchical clustering was performed using z-scores for three variables: trait anxiety; depression; and epilepsy duration. Results: Three clusters were found: vulnerable (high negative affectivity and short duration); resilient (moderate negative affectivity and long duration); and low-impact group (low negative affectivity and short duration). Results show that the vulnerable group had poorer cognitive functioning and quality of life than the other groups. Specifically, the vulnerable group had poorer scores than the low-impact group on verbal memory, visual confrontation naming, and quality of life (except seizure worry). Furthermore, resilient patients had better scores than the low-impact group on cognitive flexibility variables, but lower scores on some quality-of-life subscales (i.e., overall quality of life, emotional well-being, and energy). Finally, the vulnerable group had poorer scores than the resilient group in executive functioning, naming, and quality of life. Discussion: These results suggest that dealing with stress in patients with epilepsy is related to cognitive performance and quality of life. These findings underline the relevance of considering comorbidities in epilepsy and may be useful for detecting vulnerable or resilient profiles as risk or protective factors for cognitive and quality of life decline.

Retrospective chart review study of use of cannabidiol (CBD) independent of concomitant clobazam use in patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome.

PURPOSE: This retrospective chart review study (GWEP20052) evaluated plant-derived highly purified cannabidiol (CBD; Epidyolex®; 100 mg/mL oral solution) use without clobazam as add-on therapy in patients aged ≥2 years with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) or Dravet syndrome (DS) enrolled in a European Early Access Program. METHODS: Data were extracted from patient charts covering a period starting 3 months before CBD treatment and concluding after 12 months of CBD treatment, or sooner if a patient discontinued CBD or started clobazam. RESULTS: Of 114 enrolled patients, data were available for 107 (92 LGS, 15 DS) who received CBD without clobazam for ≥3 months. Mean age: 14.5 (LGS) and 10.5 (DS) years; female: 44% (LGS) and 67% (DS). Mean time-averaged CBD dose: 13.54 (LGS) and 11.56 (DS) mg/kg/day. Median change from baseline in seizure frequency per 28 days over 3-month intervals varied from -6.2% to -20.9% for LGS and 0% to -16.7% for DS. Achievement of ≥50% reduction in drop (LGS) or convulsive (DS) seizures at 3 and 12 months: LGS, 19% (n = 69) and 30% (n = 53); DS, 21% (n = 14) and 13% (n = 8). Retention on CBD without clobazam (enrolled set): 94%, 80%, 69%, and 63% at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Adverse event (AE) incidence was 31%, most commonly somnolence, seizure, diarrhea, and decreased appetite. Two patients discontinued CBD owing to AEs, and four patients with LGS experienced elevated liver enzymes. CONCLUSION: Results support favorable effectiveness and retention of CBD without concomitant clobazam for up to 12 months in clinical practice.

Real-world safety and effectiveness of cenobamate in patients with focal onset seizures: Outcomes from an Expanded Access Program.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated early, real-world outcomes with cenobamate (CNB) in a large series of patients with highly drug-resistant epilepsy within a Spanish Expanded Access Program (EAP). METHOD: This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational study in 14 hospitals. Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, focal seizures, and EAP authorization. Data were sourced from patient clinical records. Primary effectiveness endpoints included reductions (100%, ≥90%, ≥75%, and ≥50%) or worsening in seizure frequency at 3-, 6-, and 12-month visits and at the last visit. Safety endpoints included rates of adverse events (AEs) and AEs leading to discontinuation. RESULTS: The study included 170 patients. At baseline, median epilepsy duration was 26 years and median number of seizures/month was 11.3. The median number of prior antiseizure medications (ASMs) and concomitant ASMs were 12 and 3, respectively. Mean CNB dosages/day were 176 mg, 200 mg, and 250 mg at 3, 6, and 12 months. Retention rates were 98.2%, 94.5%, and 87% at 3, 6, and 12 months. At last available visit, the rate of seizure freedom was 13.3%; ≥90%, ≥75%, and ≥50% responder rates were 27.9%, 45.5%, and 63%, respectively. There was a significant reduction in the number of seizures per month (mean: 44.6%; median: 66.7%) between baseline and the last visit (P < 0.001). Responses were maintained regardless of the number of prior or concomitant ASMs. The number of concomitant ASMs was reduced in 44.7% of patients. The cumulative percentage of patients with AEs and AEs leading to discontinuation were 68.2% and 3.5% at 3 months, 74.1% and 4.1% at 6 months, and 74.1% and 4.1% at 12 months. The most frequent AEs were somnolence and dizziness. SIGNIFICANCE: In this highly refractory population, CNB showed a high response regardless of prior and concomitant ASMs. AEs were frequent but mostly mild-to-moderate, and few led to discontinuation.

Perampanel outcomes at different stages of treatment in people with focal and generalized epilepsy treated in clinical practice: Evidence from the PERMIT study.

Introduction: The PERMIT study is the largest pooled analysis of perampanel (PER) clinical practice data conducted to date. Methods: This post-hoc analysis of PERMIT investigated the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of PER when used as early add-on therapy (after failure of one or two previous antiseizure medications) in comparison with late add-on therapy (after failure of three or more previous antiseizure medications). Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months, and at the last visit (last observation carried forward). Effectiveness was assessed by seizure type (total seizures, focal seizures, generalized tonic-clonic seizures [GTCS]) and assessments included seizure freedom rate and responder rate. Safety and tolerability were assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs. Results: The Full Analysis Set included 1184 and 2861 PWE treated with PER as early and late add-on therapy, respectively. Compared to the late add-on subgroup, the early add-on subgroup was characterized by later mean age at epilepsy onset, shorter mean duration of epilepsy, lower rates of intellectual disability and psychiatric comorbidity, and lower frequency of seizures per month, suggesting a less severe form of epilepsy in this subgroup. After 12 months, retention was significantly higher in the early versus late add-on subgroup (67.7% vs. 62.4%; p = 0.004). At the last visit, responder rates in the early versus late add-on subgroup were significantly higher for total seizures (68.2% vs. 39.3%; p < 0.001), focal seizures (65.0% vs. 36.8%; p < 0.001) and GTCS (83.7% vs. 67.2%; p < 0.001), as were seizure freedom rates (total seizures, 35.9% vs. 11.9% [p < 0.001]; focal seizures, 29.4% vs. 8.7% [p < 0.001]; GTCS, 69.0% vs. 48.1% [p < 0.001]). Incidence of AEs was significantly lower in the early versus late add-on subgroup (42.1% vs. 54.7%; p < 0.001), as was the rate of discontinuation due to AEs over 12 months (15.0% vs. 18.1%; p = 0.031). Discussion: This study demonstrated that PER was effective and generally well tolerated when initiated as early or late add-on therapy, but it was significantly more effective and better tolerated when initiated early. These findings support PER's use as a broad-spectrum, early add-on therapy for use in PWE with focal and generalized seizures.

Perampanel for the treatment of people with idiopathic generalized epilepsy in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to evaluate perampanel (PER) when used under real-world conditions to treat people with idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE) included in the PERaMpanel pooled analysIs of effecTiveness and tolerability (PERMIT) study. METHODS: The multinational, retrospective, pooled analysis PERMIT explored the use of PER in people with focal and generalized epilepsy treated in clinical practice across 17 countries. This subgroup analysis included PERMIT participants with IGE. Time points for retention and effectiveness measurements were 3, 6, and 12 months (last observation carried forward, defined as "last visit," was also applied to effectiveness). Effectiveness was evaluated by seizure type (total seizures, generalized tonic-clonic seizures [GTCS], myoclonic seizures, absence seizures) and included ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom rate (defined as no seizures since at least the previous visit). Safety/tolerability was monitored throughout PER treatment and evaluated by documenting the incidence of adverse events (AEs), including psychiatric AEs and those leading to treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: The Full Analysis Set included 544 people with IGE (51.9% women, mean age = 33.3 years, mean epilepsy duration = 18.1 years). At 3, 6, and 12 months, 92.4%, 85.5%, and 77.3% of participants were retained on PER treatment, respectively (Retention Population, n = 497). At the last visit, responder and seizure freedom rates were, respectively, 74.2% and 54.6% (total seizures), 81.2% and 61.5% (GTCS), 85.7% and 66.0% (myoclonic seizures), and 90.5% and 81.0% (absence seizures) (Effectiveness Population, n = 467). AEs occurred in 42.9% of patients and included irritability (9.6%), dizziness/vertigo (9.2%), and somnolence (6.3%) (Tolerability Population, n = 520). Treatment discontinuation due to AEs was 12.4% over 12 months. SIGNIFICANCE: This subgroup analysis of the PERMIT study demonstrated the effectiveness and good tolerability of PER in people with IGE when administered under everyday clinical practice conditions. These findings are in line with clinical trial evidence, supporting PER's use as broad-spectrum antiseizure medication for the treatment of IGE.