Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of brivaracetam for partial-onset seizures in 3 pooled clinical studies.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Ben-Menachem E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4955277 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThis article aimed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV) in adults with focal-onset seizures on specific concomitant antiseizure medications (ASMs) taken as part of their treatment regimen.MethodsThis was a post hoc analysis of pooled data from double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (N01252/NCT00490035, N01253/NCT00464269, and N01358/NCT01261325) in patients with uncontrolled focal-onset seizures randomized to BRV (50-200 mg/day) or placebo on the most common concomitant ASMs at trial initiation.ResultsNine concomitant ASMs were analyzed: carbamazepine (CBZ), lamotrigine (LTG), valproate (VPA), oxcarbazepine (OXC), topiramate (TPM), phenytoin (PHT), lacosamide (LCM), clobazam (CLB), and phenobarbital (PHB). Reduction over placebo in focal-onset seizure frequency per 28 days with BRV ranged from 11.7% (concomitant OXC) to 33.5% (concomitant PHB). The median percentage reduction from baseline in focal-onset seizure frequency per 28 days ranged from 25.5% to 42.8% in patients on BRV (placebo 4.4-21.2%); 50% responder rates ranged from 31.9% to 44.9% in patients on BRV (placebo 11.4-25.2%). In patients on BRV, seizure freedom ranged from 1.4% (concomitant PHT) to 12.5% (concomitant LCM); seizure freedom ranged from 0% to 1.2% in patients on placebo. All efficacy endpoints analyzed were consistently numerically higher in patients on BRV versus placebo. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was generally similar across subgroups by specific concomitant ASMs in patients on BRV (range 60.8-74.5%) or placebo (range 53.8-66.7%). Drug-related TEAEs were numerically higher across all subgroups by concomitant ASM in patients on BRV (range 35.2-48.3%) versus placebo (range 23.9-37.1%). Discontinuations due to TEAEs ranged from 2.9% to 13.3% in patients on BRV and was 0-5.7% for patients taking placebo across subgroups.ConclusionBRV was efficacious and well tolerated regardless of the specific concomitant ASMs used as part of their treatment regimen. These data show that in patients with focal-onset seizures, BRV provides additional efficacy to a broad range of ASMs.

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