Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of lacosamide added to one or two antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in the treatment of patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE), and to evaluate patients' global impression of change and quality of life (QoL). Methods: This was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, noninterventional study with a 6-month observation period (EP0045; NCT02276053). Eligible patients (≥16 years old) had active BTRE secondary to low-grade glioma (World Health Organization grade 1 and 2) and were receiving treatment with one or two AEDs at baseline. Lacosamide was initiated by the treating physician in the course of routine clinical practice. Primary outcomes were 50% responders (≥50% reduction in focal seizure frequency from baseline) and Patient's Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at month 6. Secondary outcomes included seizure-free status and Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at month 6, change in QoL (5-Level EuroQol-5 Dimension Quality of Life Assessment) and symptom outcomes (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor) from baseline to month 6, and Kaplan-Meier estimated 6-month retention on lacosamide. Safety variables included adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Results: Patients were recruited from 24 sites in Europe. Ninety-three patients received lacosamide (mean [standard deviation] age = 44.5 [14.7] years; 50 [53.8%] male; median baseline focal seizure frequency = five seizures/28 days [range = 1-280]), of whom 79 (84.9%) completed the study. At 6 months, 66 of 86 (76.7%) patients were 50% responders and 30 of 86 (34.9%) were seizure-free. Improvements on PGIC were reported by 49 of 76 (64.5%) patients. Based on CGIC, 52 of 81 (64.2%) patients improved. QoL and symptoms outcome measures remained stable. 648 | RUDÀ et al.

No abstract

Objective: This study was undertaken to elicit patients' preferences for attributes characterizing antiseizure medication (ASM) monotherapy options before treatment consultation, and to explore the trade-offs patients consider between treatment efficacy and risks of side effects. Further objectives were to explore how treatment consultation may affect patient preferences, to elicit physicians' preferences in selecting treatment, and to compare patient and physician preferences for treatment. Methods: This prospective, observational study (EP0076; VOTE) included adults with focal seizures requiring a change in their ASM monotherapy. Patients completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey before and after treatment consultation. Physicians completed a similar survey after the consultation. The DCE comprised 12 choices between two hypothetical treatments defined by seven attributes. The conditional relative importance of each attribute was calculated. Results: Three hundred ten patients (mean [SD] age = 46.8 [18.3] years, 52.3% female) were enrolled from eight European countries, of whom 305 completed the survey before consultation and 273 completed the survey before and after consultation. Overall, this preference study in patients who intended to receive a new ASM monotherapy suggests that patient preferences were ordered as expected,with better outcomes being preferred to worse outcomes; patients preferred a higher chance of seizure freedom, lower risk of developing clinical depression, and fewer severe adverse events; avoiding moderate-to-severe "trouble thinking clearly" was more important than avoiding any other side effect. There were qualitative differences in what patients and physicians considered to be the most important aspects of treatment for patients; compared with patients, physicians had a qualitatively stronger preference for greater chance of seizure freedom andThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

Background New treatments are needed for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy to improve seizure control without decreasing quality of life. Objective In Belgium, a Medical Need Program (MNP) was initiated to make a new antiepileptic drug (brivaracetam; highaffinity synaptic vesicle protein 2A ligand) available as adjunctive therapy to treat focal seizures in patients failing treatment with three or more different antiepileptic drugs. This is a real-world chart review of the majority of patients (71%) enrolled in the MNP. Patients and Methods Retention and seizure outcomes of brivaracetam adjunctive treatment were evaluated in 175 patients aged ≥ 16 years enrolled in the MNP between June 2016 and May 2017 at six centers; 95.4% were previously/concomitantly treated with levetiracetam. Safety events data were also collected. Results In this highly drug-resistant population, 85.8%, 73.9%, and 64.9% of patients remained on brivaracetam, while seizure frequency decreased from baseline in 32.0%, 37.1%, and 37.3% of patients after 3, 6, and 9 months' treatment, respectively. Patients achieving 3-month seizure freedom increased from 3.2% after 3 months' treatment to 10.2% and 10.7% after 6 and 9 months' treatment, respectively. Six-month seizure freedom was achieved by 5.7% of patients at any time. Qualitative evaluation of seizures by physicians demonstrated 44.2%, 38.8%, and 43.2% of patients improved and 42.8%, 50.9%, and 50.6% remained unchanged during 3, 6, and 9 months' follow-up, respectively. No safety signals were identified. Conclusions Retention was high during 9 months of brivaracetam treatment in drug-resistant patients, including those previously/concomitantly treated with levetiracetam; 3-month seizure freedom increased from 3.2% after 3 months to 10.7% after 9 months of treatment.

No abstract