Time-to-Seizure Modeling of Lacosamide Used in Monotherapy in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Epilepsy

Model-based meta-analysis of the time to first acute urinary retention or benign prostatic hyperplasia-related surgery in patients with moderate or severe symptoms

AIMS

Combination therapy of 5α-reductase inhibitor and α-blocker is a guideline-endorsed therapeutic approach for patients with moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms or benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) who are at risk of disease progression. We aimed to disentangle the contribution of clinical and demographic baseline characteristics affecting the risk of acute urinary retention or BPH-related surgery (AUR/S) from the effect of treatment with drugs showing symptomatic and disease-modifying properties.

METHODS

A time-to-event model was developed using pooled data from patients (n = 10 238) enrolled into six clinical studies receiving placebo, tamsulosin, dutasteride or tamsulosin-dutasteride combination therapy. A parametric hazard function was used to describe the time to first AUR/S. Covariate model building included the assessment of relevant clinical and demographic factors on baseline hazard. Predictive performance was evaluated by graphical and statistical methods.

RESULTS

An exponential hazard model best described the time to first AUR/S in this group of patients. Baseline International Prostate Symptom Score, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume and maximum urine flow were identified as covariates with hazard ratio estimates of 1.04, 1.08, 1.01 and 0.91, respectively. Dutasteride monotherapy and tamsulosin-dutasteride combination therapy resulted in a significant reduction in the baseline hazard (56.8% and 66.4%, respectively). By contrast, the effect of tamsulosin did not differ from placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis showed the implications of disease-modifying properties of dutasteride and tamsulosin-dutasteride combination therapy for the risk of AUR/S. It also elucidated the contribution of different baseline characteristics to the risk of these events. The use of tamsulosin monotherapy (symptomatic treatment) has no impact on individual long-term risk.

Is Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Lacosamide Needed in Patients with Seizures and Epilepsy?

Lacosamide is an antiepileptic drug (AED) that has linear pharmacokinetics, predictable blood concentrations, and few drug interactions, setting it apart from other AEDs that require vigorous therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) such as phenytoin and carbamazepine. However, there have been reports of altered lacosamide pharmacokinetics in some populations. The purpose of this review is to determine whether lacosamide pharmacokinetics are altered in certain patient populations, suggesting the need for TDM. A literature search of Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane trials was conducted on January 3, 2019 (and then updated on September 2, 2019) to search for articles relevant to the TDM or pharmacokinetics of lacosamide. A total of 56 relevant articles were found and included in this review. Dose of lacosamide is linearly correlated with plasma concentrations and efficacy. However, currently there is no well-established reference range. Overall, the recommended reference ranges varied from 2.2 to 20 mg/L. Lacosamide has very few clinically relevant drug-drug interactions; however, there seems to be a significant drug interaction between lacosamide and enzyme-inducer AEDs. Based on available literature, it appears that lacosamide pharmacokinetics may be altered in severe renal dysfunction, in patients on dialysis and with extremes of age. More evidence is currently needed on lacosamide pharmacokinetics in pregnancy and critical illness. While it is not practical to utilize TDM for all patients, TDM may be useful in patients taking enzyme-inducer AEDs, in patients with decreased renal function or on dialysis, and older adults.

[Pharmacoeconomic aspects of monotherapy of focal epilepsy]

AIM

To perform a clinical/economic comparison of monotherapy with antiepileptic drugs (AED) in patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy (FE) based on the results of previous studies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The most common AEDs (carbamazepine (CBZ), oxcarbazepine (OXZ), lamotrigine (LTG), lacosamide (LCM)) were compared in patients, aged 16 years and over, with illness duration of five years.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

CBZ, OXZ and LCM can be used as monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed FE. Monotherapy with LCM is associated with lowest costs for stopping focal seizures and the highest percentage of seizure-free patients. CBZ remains the most economical AED: the cost-effectiveness is minimal compared to all other AEDs used in the study. However, monotherapy with LCM is advisable if it is necessary to minimize side-effects in patients with newly diagnosed FE.

Relationship between factor VIII activity, bleeds and individual characteristics in severe hemophilia A patients

Pharmacokinetic-based prophylaxis of replacement factor VIII (FVIII) products has been encouraged in recent years, but the relationship between exposure (factor VIII activity) and response (bleeding frequency) remains unclear. The aim of this study was to characterize the relationship between FVIII dose, plasma FVIII activity, and bleeding patterns and individual characteristics in severe hemophilia A patients. Pooled pharmacokinetic and bleeding data during prophylactic treatment with BAY 81-8973 (octocog alfa) were obtained from the three LEOPOLD trials. The population pharmacokinetics of FVIII activity and longitudinal bleeding frequency, as well as bleeding severity, were described using non-linear mixed effects modeling in NONMEM. In total, 183 patients [median age 22 years (range, 1-61); weight 60 kg (11-124)] contributed with 1,535 plasma FVIII activity observations, 633 bleeds and 11 patient/study characteristics [median observation period 12 months (3.1-13.1)]. A parametric repeated time-to-categorical bleed model, guided by plasma FVIII activity from a 2-compartment population pharmacokinetic model, described the time to the occurrence of bleeds and their severity. Bleeding probability decreased with time of study, and a bleed was not found to affect the time of the next bleed. Several covariate effects were identified, including the bleeding history in the 12-month pre-study period increasing the bleeding hazard. However, unexplained inter-patient variability in the phenotypic bleeding pattern remained large (111%CV). Further studies to translate the model into a tool for dose individualization that considers the individual bleeding risk are required. Research was based on a post-hoc analysis of the LEOPOLD studies registered at clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: 01029340, 01233258 and 01311648.