Efficacy and tolerability of Brivaracetam in people with intellectual disability compared to those without intellectual disability.

In England, nearly a quarter of people with intellectual disability (PwID) have epilepsy. Though 70 % of PwID have pharmaco-resistant seizures only 10 % are prescribed anti-seizure medication (ASMs) licenced for pharmaco-resistance. Brivaracetam (BRV) licenced in 2016 has had nine post-marketing studies involving PwID. These studies are limited either by lack of controls or not looking at outcomes based on differing levels of ID severity. This study looks at evidence comparing effectiveness and side-effects in PwID to those without ID prescribed Brivaracetam (BRV). Pooled case note data for patients prescribed BRV (2016-2022) at 12 UK NHS Trusts were analysed. Demographics, starting and maximum dose, side-effects, dropouts and seizure frequency between ID (mild vs. moderate-profound (M/P)) and general population for a 12-month period were compared. Descriptive analysis, Mann-Whitney, Fisher's exact and logistic regression methods were employed. 37 PwID (mild 17 M/P 20) were compared to 102 without ID. Mean start and maximum dose was lower for PwID than non-ID. Mean maximum dose reduced slightly with ID severity. No difference was found between ID and non-ID or between ID groups (Mild vs M/P) in BRV's efficacy i.e. >50 % seizure reduction or tolerability. Mental and behavioural side-effects were more prevalent for PwID (27.0 % ID, 17.6 % no ID) but not significantly higher (P = 0.441) or associated with ID severity (p = 0.255). This is the first study on BRV, which compares ID cohorts with differing severity and non-ID. Efficacy, tolerability and side-effects reported are similar across differing ID severity to those with no ID.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: UCB pharma provided an investigator initiated support grant which part paid the research co-ordinator JA’s time. PT has received honoraria and support for educational projects from UCB Pharma. AS hold a current research grant with UCB Pharma looking at the possible immune basis for drug resistance in epilepsy. It is not a direct conflict with the manuscript. AS and the Oxford Research Group have received institutional and research support from Bial, Eisai, Livanova, UCB Pharma. RS has received Honoria, institutional and research support from LivaNova, UCB, Eisai, Veriton Pharma, Bial, Angelini, UnEEG and Jazz/GW pharma outside the submitted work. He holds grants from NIHR AI, SBRI and other funding bodies all outside this work. No other author has any declared conflict of interest related to this paper.