Effectiveness of lamotrigine in clinical practice: Results of a retrospective population-based study

Efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel treatment in pediatric patients with epilepsy aged 4-12 years: a real-world study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of perampanel (PER) as an adjunctive therapy in children aged 4-12 years with epilepsy.

METHODS

We performed a non-randomized, open-label, placebo-uncontrolled, real-world self-controlled study that included 216 young children (aged 4-12 years) with epilepsy who received PER as adjunctive therapy at the children's hospital affiliated with Chongqing Medical University from July 4, 2020, to September 20, 2023.

RESULTS

(1) The efficacy rates of adjunctive PER therapy at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months were 62.8%, 67.8%, 65.3%, and 61.2%, respectively. PER showed efficacy in alleviating focal seizures, generalized tonic-clonic seizures, myoclonic seizures, and absence seizures. The efficacy rates for variants of self-limited epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes (SeLECTS) and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) were 89.5% and 66.7%, respectively. (2) Focal non-motor onset seizures with or without impaired awareness, focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), LGS, variants of SeLECTS, the number of concomitant antiseizure medications (ASMs), a family history of epilepsy, and focal lesions on cranial magnetic resonance imaging were independent factors affecting efficacy. The order of PER addition did not affect efficacy. The retention rates at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months were 90.7%, 84.7%, 74.7%, 64.9%, respectively. (3) Adverse reactions occurred in 45 patients (45/216, 20.8%), with irritability/aggressive behavior (18/216, 8.3%) and somnolence (14/216, 6.5%) being the most common. Twelve patients (12/216, 5.6%) withdrew from the study because of adverse reactions.

CONCLUSION

In young Chinese children with epilepsy, PER is effective, safe, and well-tolerated as an adjunctive therapy, making it a viable option for use with broad-spectrum ASMs.

Clinical and economic implications of epilepsy management across treatment lines in Spain: a real-life database analysis

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a chronic brain disease characterized by recurrent seizures. We investigated real-world management of epilepsy across treatment lines in Spain, including healthcare resource use (HRU) and associated costs.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of real-life data from epilepsy patients prescribed antiseizure medication (ASM) between January 2016 and December 2021. Patients were grouped according to their line of treatment (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th +) during the recruitment period. Demographic and clinical characteristics, comorbidities and concomitant medications were analyzed during the baseline period (6 months before starting treatment line); antiepileptic treatments, concomitant medications, HRU and associated costs were analyzed during follow-up.

RESULTS

The study included 5006 patients. Treatment duration decreased as treatment lines progressed (mean ± SD progression time: 523.2 ± 279.1 days from 1st to 2nd line, 351.6 ± 194.4 days from 2nd to 3rd line; 272.7 ± 139.3 days from 3rd to 4th + line). Significant HRU differences were found with subsequent treatment lines, including an increase in hospital admissions and patients on sick leave. Mean (95% CI) adjusted total costs per patient were €2974/year (2773-3175) in the 1st line and €5735/year (5043-6428) in the 4th + line. There was an increase in adjusted direct and total costs with subsequent treatment lines; the mean difference in total costs between cohorts was €2761 (p < 0.001). The highest direct costs were associated with epilepsy medication, days at the hospital and specialist visits.

CONCLUSION

Our data revealed a progressive increase in the use of resources and associated costs across subsequent epilepsy treatment lines.

EARLY-ESLI study: Long-term experience with eslicarbazepine acetate after first monotherapy failure

PURPOSE

Evaluate real-life experience with eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) after first monotherapy failure in a large series of patients with focal epilepsy.

METHOD

Multicentre, retrospective, 1-year, observational study in patients older than 18 years, with focal epilepsy, who had failed first antiepileptic drug monotherapy and who received ESL. Data from clinical records were analysed at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months to assess effectiveness and tolerability.

RESULTS

Eslicarbazepine acetate was initiated in 253 patients. The 1-year retention rate was 92.9%, and the final median dose of ESL was 800 mg. At 12 months, 62.3% of patients had been seizure free for 6 months; 37.3% had been seizure free for 1 year. During follow-up, 31.6% of the patients reported ESL-related adverse events (AEs), most commonly somnolence (8.7%) and dizziness (5.1%), and 3.6% discontinued due to AEs. Hyponatraemia was observed in seven patients (2.8%). After starting ESL, 137 patients (54.2%) withdrew the prior monotherapy and converted to ESL monotherapy; 75.9% were seizure free, 87.6% were responders, 4.4% worsened, and 23.4% reported ESL-related AEs.

CONCLUSION

Use of ESL after first monotherapy failure was associated with an optimal seizure control and tolerability profile. Over half of patients were converted to ESL monotherapy during follow-up.

Long-term safety and efficacy of eslicarbazepine acetate in patients with focal seizures: results of the 1-year ESLIBASE retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is a new antiepileptic drug (AED) licensed as adjunctive therapy in adults with partial-onset or focal seizures.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate in a clinical practice setting the long-term efficacy and safety of ESL in patients with focal seizures.

METHODS

ESLIBASE was a retrospective study that included all patients with focal seizures who started ESL between January 2010 and July 2012 at 12 hospitals. ESL was prescribed individually according to real-life practice. Efficacy and safety were evaluated over 1 year. Switching from carbamazepine (CBZ) and oxcarbazepine (OXC) was assessed.

RESULTS

Three hundred and twenty-seven patients were included; 78% of patients were taking ≥2 other AEDs at baseline. Most (87%) began ESL because of poor seizure control and 13% because of adverse events (AEs) with CBZ or OXC. After 1 year, 237 patients (72.4%) remained on ESL. At 3, 6 and 12 months, the responder rate was 46.3%, 57.9%, and 52.5%, and 21.0%, 28.0%, and 25.3% of patients were seizure free. The responder rate significantly increased when ESL was combined with a non-sodium channel-targeting drug (non-SC drug) (66.7%) versus an SC drug (47.7%; p<0.001). At 12 months, 40.7% of patients had ≥1 AE; AEs led to treatment discontinuation in 16.2%. Dizziness, nausea, and somnolence were the most common AEs. The tolerability profile improved in >50% of the patients who switched from CBZ or OXC to ESL because of AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

ESL was well tolerated and effective in a real-world setting over 1 year. Side-effect profile improved when OXC and CBZ recipients were switched to ESL.

Control of seizures in different stages of partial epilepsy: LACO-EXP, a Spanish retrospective study of lacosamide

Lacosamide is approved as adjunctive therapy for focal epilepsies. The number of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) tried is associated with prognosis. This multicenter, retrospective, observational study (LACO-EXP) in Spain in 500 adult patients with focal epilepsies examined the efficacy and tolerability of add-on lacosamide. Factors associated with better efficacy/tolerability were analyzed. After 12months, the responder rate (≥50% reduction in seizure frequency) was 57.1%, and the seizure-free rate was 14.9%. Efficacy was better when lacosamide was the first or second add-on AED, although there was a small chance to be seizure-free even for patients who had received ≤10 prior AEDs. The mechanism of action of concomitant AEDs is important in all the stages, but differences are smaller in the early stages. Lacosamide was generally well tolerated. A slower dosage-titration schedule was associated with a lower adverse event rate. Further investigation of the timing of initiation of lacosamide add-on therapy and ideal combinations of AEDs is required.

Measuring outcomes of treatment with antiepileptic drugs in clinical trials

Epilepsy often requires life-long treatment with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). For clinicians to meet the challenges of patient management, data on AED performance based on clearly defined and consistently applied outcome measures are needed. Ideally, the design of AED clinical trials should be relevant to real-world settings, providing reliable, valid, and comprehensive information on efficacy, tolerability, and quality of life (QOL). Several types of outcome parameters have been employed: percent seizure reduction, responder rate based on > or =50% seizure reduction, seizure-free rate, time to first seizure, time to Nth seizure, adverse events, QOL, retention, and compliance. Each provides important information about a drug's performance. Here we define and review endpoints for measuring AED treatment success and explore the concepts of efficacy, tolerability, QOL, retention, and compliance as well as their usefulness as clinical trial endpoints.

The impact of side effects on long-term retention in three new antiepileptic drugs

OBJECTIVE

To determine long-term retention, percentage of patients withdrawing because of adverse events, percentage of patients achieving seizure freedom, safety profile of the new anti-epileptic drugs lamotrigine, levetiracetam and topiramate.

METHODS

All patients treated with lamotrigine, levetiracetam or topiramate in the Epilepsy Centre were identified. Each drug was analyzed from introduction of the drug in the Netherlands up to a final assessment point 2 years later.

RESULTS

Data from 1066 patients were included: 336 for lamotrigine, 301 for levetiracetam, 429 for topiramate. Two-year retention rates were 69.2% (lamotrigine), 45.8% (levetiracetam), 38.3% (topiramate); (LTG vs. LEV at p<0.001; LTG vs. TPM at p<0.001; LEV vs. TPM at p=0.005). Seizure freedom rates were lowest for lamotrigine and highest for levetiracetam. Adverse events played a role in drug discontinuation in 154/429 patients (35.9%) on topiramate, 52/336 patients (15.5%) on lamotrigine (p<0.001), 68/301 patients (22.5%) on levetiracetam (p<0.001). Mood and general CNS-effects are common in patients on lamotrigine and levetiracetam, and neurocognitive side effects are most prevalent in patients on topiramate. A positive effect on cognition is frequently noted in patients on lamotrigine.

CONCLUSION

A drug that is only modestly efficacious but has a favourable safety profile may look better than a drug that is more efficacious but produces clinically meaningful adverse events. Therefore, a drug's retention rate is mainly determined by its side effect profile. As a consequence, retention rate was highest for lamotrigine and lowest for topiramate. Intermediate retention rates were seen with levetiracetam use.

Cost-effectiveness of add-on lamotrigine therapy in clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective study addresses the cost-effectiveness of add-on therapy with lamotrigine in clinical practice.

METHODS

Two years' observational data of 165 patients were used. Seizure frequency, adverse effects and direct medical costs were recorded for the year before and the year after the start of lamotrigine add-on therapy. Therapy effectiveness was measured by: (1) reduction in seizure frequency and (2) retention time. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed the direct medical cost per patient treated effectively with lamotrigine.

RESULTS

The cost of medication was 492 (95% CI: 399-583) higher after the start of lamotrigine therapy. The extra cost of lamotrigine therapy (622) was partly offset by a reduction of the cost of co-medication (-130; 95% CI: -210 to -50). Overall, the total medical cost was 453 higher in the first year of lamotrigine therapy than in the year before the start of lamotrigine. Lamotrigine was effective in 47% of all the patients, making the resultant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio 954 per year.

DISCUSSION

Add-on therapy of lamotrigine for patients with uncontrolled epilepsy offers improved health outcomes. Lamotrigine therapy is associated with increased cost (453) and an annual incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 954. These data, together with utility data published in the literature, support the notion that lamotrigine should be considered as an add-on therapy in for patients with refractory epilepsy.