Korean
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Epilepsy and Behavior 2020-May

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

등록 된 사용자 만 기사를 번역 할 수 있습니다.
로그인 / 가입
링크가 클립 보드에 저장됩니다.
Jerzy Szaflarski
Ahmed Sadek
Bernhard Greve
Paulette Williams
Julie Varner
Brian Moseley

키워드

요약

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.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).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.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.

페이스 북
페이지에 가입하세요

과학이 뒷받침하는 가장 완벽한 약초 데이터베이스

  • 55 개 언어로 작동
  • 과학이 뒷받침하는 약초 치료제
  • 이미지로 허브 인식
  • 인터랙티브 GPS지도-위치에 허브 태그 지정 (출시 예정)
  • 검색과 관련된 과학 출판물 읽기
  • 효과로 약초 검색
  • 관심사를 정리하고 뉴스 연구, 임상 실험 및 특허를 통해 최신 정보를 확인하세요.

증상이나 질병을 입력하고 도움이 될 수있는 약초에 대해 읽고 약초를 입력하고 사용되는 질병과 증상을 확인합니다.
* 모든 정보는 발표 된 과학 연구를 기반으로합니다.

Google Play badgeApp Store badge