INTRODUCTION: This analysis was conducted to assess the tolerability, safety, and efficacy of brivaracetam (BRV) for adjunctive treatment of focal (partial-onset) seizures in patients aged ≥65 years. METHODS: Safety/tolerability and efficacy data for patients aged ≥65 years were pooled from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose Phase III studies (NCT00490035, NCT00464269, and NCT01261325). Data were pooled by treatment group: placebo or the proposed therapeutic dose range of 50-200 mg/day: BRV 50, 100, 200mg/day. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients aged ≥65 years were randomized to placebo or BRV 50-200 mg/day. Of these, 30 patients (93.8%) completed their respective study. In the safety population (n=32), 87.5% placebo- vs 73.3% BRV-treated patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) during the treatment period; most commonly, headache (25.0% vs 12.5%), paresthesia (0% vs 12.5%), and somnolence (50.0% vs 12.5%) for placebo- vs BRV-treated patients, respectively. During the treatment period, drug-related TEAEs were reported by 62.5% of placebo- vs 53.3% of BRV-treated patients, and serious TEAEs (SAEs) were reported by 0% of placebo- and 4.2% of BRV-treated patients; there were no drug-related SAEs and no deaths. Three SAEs (placebo 1/8; BRV 2/24) and two deaths (placebo 1/8; BRV 1/24) occurred in the post-treatment period. In the efficacy population (n=31), median percent reduction from baseline in focal seizure frequency/28days was 14.0% for placebo vs 25.5%, 49.6%, and 74.9% for BRV 50, 100, and 200 mg/day, respectively. The ≥50% responder rate was 14.3% for placebo vs 25.0%, 50.0%, and 66.7% for BRV 50, 100, and 200 mg/day, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Safety/tolerability and efficacy findings in this small subgroup of older patients treated with adjunctive BRV are consistent with those observed in the much larger overall pooled population. BRV may be a suitable adjunctive treatment for older patients with uncontrolled focal seizures. Further larger studies in this population are warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brodie et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: