Randomized open-label trial of intravenous brivaracetam versus lorazepam for acute treatment of increased seizure activity

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the present trial was to assess efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) brivaracetam (BRV) vs. lorazepam (LZP) in patients with epilepsy undergoing evaluation in an epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) who experienced seizures requiring acute treatment.

Methods: This was a phase 2, open-label, randomized, active-control, proof-of-concept trial (EP0087; NCT03021018). Patients (18-70 years) admitted to EMU were randomized 1:1:1 to single-dose bolus IV LZP (dose per investigator's practice), IV BRV 100 mg, or IV BRV 200 mg. Trial medication had to be administered within 30 min of qualifying seizure. Primary efficacy outcome was time to next seizure (clinical observation with electroencephalogram [EEG] confirmation) or to rescue medication use within 12 h of trial medication administration. Secondary outcomes included seizure freedom and rescue medication use within 12 h of trial medication administration. Safety and tolerability outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

Results: Overall, 46 patients were randomized, and 45 received trial medication for a qualifying seizure. Patients in the LZP arm had doses from 1 to 4 mg (median: 1 mg). Eleven of 45 patients had a seizure within 12 h of trial medication administration (LZP 5/15 [median time to next seizure: 5.55 h], BRV 100 mg 3/15 [5.97 h], BRV 200 mg 3/15 [3.60 h]). No patients received additional rescue medication to control their qualifying seizure. Most patients were seizure-free over 12 h (LZP 9/15 [60.0%], BRV 100 mg 12/15 [80.0%], BRV 200 mg 12/15 [80.0%]). Rescue medication use within 12 h was numerically higher for LZP (6/15 [40.0%]) vs. BRV 100 mg (1/15 [6.7%]) and vs. BRV 200 mg (2/15 [13.3%]). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 5/16 (31.3%), 6/15 (40.0%), and 3/15 (20.0%) of LZP, BRV 100 mg, and BRV 200 mg patients; one LZP patient had a serious TEAE (seizure cluster). Most common TEAEs (≥10% of patients) were sedation and somnolence with LZP, and dizziness, headache, and nausea with BRV.

Significance: Intravenous LZP, IV BRV 100 mg, and IV BRV 200 mg showed similar efficacy in controlling acute seizure activity in the EMU. Treatment-emergent adverse events were as expected for each medication. Although this trial should be interpreted with caution because of small patient numbers, it suggests a possible role of BRV in the acute treatment of increased seizure activity.

Keywords: Acute seizure; Antiepileptic drug; Efficacy; Epilepsy monitoring unit; Safety; Tolerability.