Department of Neurology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Department of Neurology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Epilepsy Behav. 2019 Oct;99:106505. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2019.106505. Epub 2019 Sep 4.
Clinical studies suggest that the antiepileptic drug (AED) brivaracetam (BRV) is associated with fewer behavioral and psychiatric adverse events (AEs) compared with levetiracetam (LEV) in treating epilepsy. There are, however, few comparative studies of treatment-emergent AEs between patients on BRV with preexisting psychiatric or behavioral comorbidities to those without. Our study compared longer-term tolerability over a 26-month period between these patient groups and assessed the overall efficacy of BRV as add-on therapy. Patients with intellectual disabilities in whom the prevalence of epilepsy is higher, are often excluded from randomized controlled trials, and our study further assessed comparative effectiveness between this patient group and those with normal range intellect. We collected prospective data on 134 patients prescribed add-on BRV for epilepsy at a tertiary UK center over a 26-month period. All patients had previously received LEV. Sixty-three patients were on LEV at the start of the data collection period. Levetiracetam was withdrawn and switched to BRV in 39 patients because of inefficacy and 24 patients because of behavioral or psychiatric side effects. Seventy-three patients (54%) had a preexisting psychiatric or behavioral disorder compared with 64 patients (46%) without. The retention rate at last follow-up [mean: 11 months (0.5-26 months)] was 60% in the psychiatric/behavioral disorders group versus 67% in those without (p = 0.68). Forty-one patients had diagnosed intellectual disabilities. The retention rate was 66% in this group versus 62% in patients without intellectual disabilities (p = 0.36). The commonest treatment-emergent AEs were somnolence (26%), aggression (23%), and depression (9%). There were similar frequencies reported for these specific events across the groups. The proportion with a 50% responder rate was 29% in patients with focal epilepsy and 47% in patients with generalized and combined focal and generalized epilepsies. However, fifteen patients (11%) reported increased seizure activity leading to withdrawal of treatment. This study showed evidence that BRV may be an effective adjunctive therapy in patients with drug-resistant focal or generalized epilepsies whose seizures have previously not responded or tolerated LEV therapy. We demonstrated a higher incidence of treatment-emergent AEs leading to lower retention rates compared with previous studies across all patient groups. There were, however, no significant differences in tolerability between patients with preexisting psychiatric or behavioral comorbidities, or intellectual disability to those without.
临床研究表明,与左乙拉西坦(LEV)相比,抗癫痫药(AED)布瓦西坦(BRV)在治疗癫痫时与较少的行为和精神不良事件(AE)相关。然而,对于有或没有先前存在的精神或行为合并症的 BRV 治疗患者与 LEV 治疗患者之间的治疗中出现的 AE,比较研究较少。我们的研究比较了两组患者在 26 个月的治疗期间的长期耐受性,并评估了 BRV 作为附加疗法的总体疗效。智力障碍患者中癫痫的患病率较高,往往被排除在随机对照试验之外,我们的研究还进一步评估了该患者组与智力正常患者之间的比较疗效。我们在英国一家三级中心对 134 名接受 BRV 治疗癫痫的患者进行了前瞻性数据收集,为期 26 个月。所有患者以前都接受过 LEV 治疗。在数据收集开始时,有 63 名患者接受 LEV 治疗。由于无效和 24 名患者因行为或精神副作用,39 名患者停用 LEV 并改用 BRV。73 名患者(54%)有先前存在的精神或行为障碍,64 名患者(46%)无先前存在的精神或行为障碍。在最后一次随访时的保留率[平均:11 个月(0.5-26 个月)]在有精神/行为障碍组为 60%,在无精神/行为障碍组为 67%(p=0.68)。41 名患者被诊断为智力障碍。在该组中,保留率为 66%,在无智力障碍的患者中为 62%(p=0.36)。最常见的治疗中出现的 AE 是嗜睡(26%)、攻击性(23%)和抑郁(9%)。在这些组中报告了类似的这些特定事件的频率。局灶性癫痫患者的 50%应答率为 29%,全身性和合并局灶性和全身性癫痫患者的 50%应答率为 47%。然而,有 15 名患者(11%)报告癫痫发作活动增加,导致治疗中断。这项研究表明,BRV 可能是一种有效的附加治疗药物,用于治疗耐药性局灶性或全身性癫痫患者,这些患者以前对 LEV 治疗无反应或不能耐受。我们发现在所有患者组中,与以前的研究相比,治疗中出现的 AE 导致保留率较低,这表明 BRV 可能是一种有效的附加治疗药物。然而,在有或没有先前存在的精神或行为合并症或智力障碍的患者中,耐受性没有显著差异。