Tolerability and efficacy of lacosamide and controlled-release carbamazepine monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy and concomitant psychiatric conditions: Post hoc analysis of a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial

The Pharmacological Treatment of Chronic Pain: From Guidelines to Daily Clinical Practice

In agreement with the International Association for the Study of Pain, chronic pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage. To date, there are several types of pain: nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic. In the present narrative review, we evaluated the characteristics of the drugs used for each type of pain, according to guidelines, and their effects in people with comorbidity to reduce the development of severe adverse events.

The therapeutic effects of lacosamide on epilepsy-associated comorbidities

Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder associated with severe social and psychological effects, and most epilepsy patients often report at least one comorbidity. Accumulating evidence have suggested that lacosamide, a new generation of anti-seizure medications, may exhibit efficacy in the management of both epilepsy and its related comorbidities. Therefore, this narrative review aimed to elucidate the recent advancements regarding the therapeutic role of lacosamide in epilepsy-associated comorbidities. The possible pathophysiological mechanisms between epilepsy and epilepsy-associated comorbidities have been also partially described. Whether lacosamide improves cognitive and behavioral functions in patients with epilepsy has not been conclusively established. Some studies support that lacosamide may alleviate anxiety and depression in epilepsy patients. In addition, lacosamide has been found to be safe and effective in the treatment of epilepsy in people with intellectual disabilities, epilepsy of cerebrovascular etiology, and epilepsy associated with brain tumors. Moreover, lacosamide treatment has demonstrated fewer side effects on other systems. Hence, future larger and higher quality clinical studies are needed to further explore both the safety and efficacy of lacosamide in the treatment of epilepsy-associated comorbidities.

Movement disorders associated with antiseizure medications: A systematic review

New-onset movement disorders have been frequently reported in association with the use of antiseizure medications (ASMs). The frequency of specific motor manifestations and the spectrum of their semiology for various ASMs have not been well characterized. We carried out a systematic review of literature and conducted a search on CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Scopus from inception to April 2021. We compiled the data for all currently available ASMs using the conventional terminology of movement disorders. Among 5123 manuscripts identified by the search, 437 met the inclusion criteria. The largest number of reports of abnormal movements were in association with phenobarbital, valproic acid, lacosamide, and perampanel, and predominantly included tremor and ataxia. The majority of attempted interventions for all agents were discontinuation of the offending drug or dose reduction which led to the resolution of symptoms in most patients. Familiarity with the movement disorder phenomenology previously encountered in relation with specific ASMs facilitates early recognition of adverse effects and timely institution of targeted interventions.

Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2017. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for focal onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however, a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure of 12 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, eventrate, zonisamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with focal onset seizures (simple focal, complex focal or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 12 April 2021: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to April 09, 2021). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) and network meta-analysis (NMA) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to treatment failure', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', and 'time to first seizure post-randomisation'. We performed frequentist NMA to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 12 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct 'pairwise' estimates and NMA results via node splitting. Results are presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using the CiNeMA approach, based on the GRADE framework. We have also provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD were provided for at least one outcome of this review for 14,789 out of a total of 22,049 eligible participants (67% of total data) from 39 out of the 89 eligible trials (43% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 50 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions. No IPD were available from a single trial of eslicarbazepine acetate, so this AED could not be included in the NMA. Network meta-analysis showed high-certainty evidence that for our primary outcome, 'time to treatment failure', for individuals with focal seizures; lamotrigine performs better than most other treatments in terms of treatment failure for any reason and due to adverse events, including the other first-line treatment carbamazepine; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for lamotrigine versus: eventrate 1.01 (0.88 to 1.20), zonisamide 1.18 (0.96 to 1.44), lacosamide 1.19 (0.90 to 1.58), carbamazepine 1.26 (1.10 to 1.44), oxcarbazepine 1.30 (1.02 to 1.66), sodium valproate 1.35 (1.09 to 1.69), phenytoin 1.44 (1.11 to 1.85), topiramate 1.50 (1.23 to 1.81), gabapentin 1.53 (1.26 to 1.85), phenobarbitone 1.97 (1.45 to 2.67). No significant difference between lamotrigine and eventrate was shown for any treatment failure outcome, and both AEDs seemed to perform better than all other AEDs. For people with generalised onset seizures, evidence was more limited and of moderate certainty; no other treatment performed better than first-line treatment sodium valproate, but there were no differences between sodium valproate, lamotrigine or eventrate in terms of treatment failure; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for sodium valproate versus: lamotrigine 1.06 (0.81 to 1.37), eventrate 1.13 (0.89 to 1.42), gabapentin 1.13 (0.61 to 2.11), phenytoin 1.17 (0.80 to 1.73), oxcarbazepine 1.24 (0.72 to 2.14), topiramate 1.37 (1.06 to 1.77), carbamazepine 1.52 (1.18 to 1.96), phenobarbitone 2.13 (1.20 to 3.79), lacosamide 2.64 (1.14 to 6.09). Network meta-analysis also showed high-certainty evidence that for secondary remission outcomes, few notable differences were shown for either seizure type; for individuals with focal seizures, carbamazepine performed better than gabapentin (12-month remission) and sodium valproate (six-month remission). No differences between lamotrigine and any AED were shown for individuals with focal seizures, or between sodium valproate and other AEDs for individuals with generalised onset seizures. Network meta-analysis also showed high- to moderate-certainty evidence that, for 'time to first seizure,' in general, the earliest licensed treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for individuals with focal seizures; phenobarbitone performed better than both first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine. There were no notable differences between the newer drugs (oxcarbazepine, topiramate, gabapentin, eventrate, zonisamide and lacosamide) for either seizure type. Generally, direct evidence (where available) and network meta-analysis estimates were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping. There was no important indication of inconsistency between direct and network meta-analysis results. The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders; however, reporting of adverse events was highly variable across AEDs and across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-certainty evidence demonstrates that for people with focal onset seizures, current first-line treatment options carbamazepine and lamotrigine, as well as newer drug eventrate, show the best profile in terms of treatment failure and seizure control as first-line treatments. For people with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types), current first-line treatment sodium valproate has the best profile compared to all other treatments, but lamotrigine and eventrate would be the most suitable alternative first-line treatments, particularly for those for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option. Further evidence from randomised controlled trials recruiting individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types) is needed.

Safety and Tolerability of Lacosamide in Patients With Epilepsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: As a third-generation antiseizure medication (ASM), lacosamide (LCM) is recommended worldwide for patients with epilepsy. We aimed to provide more conclusive evidence for the safety and tolerability of LCM in patients with epilepsy. Methods: A systematic search was performed on MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, IDB, VIP Database, and Wanfang Database from inception to 2021 March, and all studies assessing the safety of LCM were included. A meta-analysis was performed for safety data of LCM. Results: Eighty-three studies involving 12268 populations (11 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 16 cohort studies, 53 case series, and 3 case reports) were included in our study. Meta-analysis of the total incidence of adverse events (AEs) of LCM was 38.7% [95% CI (35.1%, 45.8%); n=75 studies]. Incidence of withdrawal due to AEs was 10.8% [95% CI (9.1%, 12.6%); n=56 studies], and incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) was 6.5% [95% CI (4.0%, 8.9%); n=13 studies]. Most AEs were in the nervous system and digestive system. The most common AEs were sedation (15.8%), dizziness (15.7%), fatigue (9.4%), and nausea/vomiting (9.3%). For children, the total incidence of AEs of LCM was 32.8% [95% CI (21.6%, 44.0%); n=16 studies], and the most common AEs were dizziness (8.6%), nausea/vomiting (8.6%), and somnolence (6.8%). Conclusion: Lacosamide is generally safe and well tolerated in patients with epilepsy. Common AEs were sedation, dizziness, and fatigue. It is necessary to pay more attention to the prevention and management of these AEs and conduct more large-scale and high-quality studies to update safety data.

Sodium channel blockers are effective for benign infantile epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy and tolerance of the antiseizure medications lacosamide (LCM) and levetiracetam (LEV) in patients with benign infantile epilepsy (BIE).

METHODS

The clinical data of 24 children with BIE seen between 2014 and 2020 were collected retrospectively, and treatment, effectiveness, and adverse effects were examined. PRRT2 gene analysis was performed using Sanger sequencing.

RESULTS

Of the 24 children with BIE, 14 were treated with antiseizure medications. PRRT2 gene analysis was performed in 14 children, and mutations were identified in 4, including a pair of siblings. All five children treated with LCM became seizure-free, similar to those treated with carbamazepine. The LCM does was 2 mg/kg/day in all cases. There were no adverse effects in any patient treated with LCM. By contrast, both patients treated with LEV had seizure recurrence. In one patient, LEV was replaced with CBZ, resulting in seizure freedom.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose LCM was effective and well tolerated in patients with BIE, whereas LEV was insufficiently effective.

PERMIT study: a global pooled analysis study of the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel in routine clinical practice

The PERaMpanel pooled analysIs of effecTiveness and tolerability (PERMIT) study was a pooled analysis of data from 44 real-world studies from 17 countries, in which people with epilepsy (PWE; focal and generalized) were treated with perampanel (PER). Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months, and at the last visit (last observation carried forward). Effectiveness assessments included 50% responder rate (≥ 50% reduction in seizure frequency from baseline) and seizure freedom rate (no seizures since at least the prior visit); in PWE with status epilepticus, response was defined as seizures under control. Safety and tolerability were assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs. The Full Analysis Set included 5193 PWE. Retention, effectiveness and safety/tolerability were assessed in 4721, 4392 and 4617, respectively. Retention on PER treatment at 3, 6, and 12 months was 90.5%, 79.8%, and 64.2%, respectively. Mean retention time on PER treatment was 10.8 months. The 50% responder rate was 58.3% at 12 months and 50.0% at the last visit, and the corresponding seizure freedom rates were 23.2% and 20.5%, respectively; 52.7% of PWE with status epilepticus responded to PER treatment. Overall, 49.9% of PWE reported AEs and the most frequently reported AEs (≥ 5% of PWE) were dizziness/vertigo (15.2%), somnolence (10.6%), irritability (8.4%), and behavioral disorders (5.4%). At 12 months, 17.6% of PWEs had discontinued due to AEs. PERMIT demonstrated that PER is effective and generally well tolerated when used to treat people with focal and/or generalized epilepsy in everyday clinical practice.

Experimental Therapeutic Strategies in Epilepsies Using Anti-Seizure Medications

Epilepsies are among the most common neurological problems. The disease burden in patients with epilepsy is significantly high, and epilepsy has a huge negative impact on patients' quality of life with epilepsy and their families. Anti-seizure medications are the mainstay treatment in patients with epilepsy, and around 70% of patients will ultimately control with a combination of at least two appropriately selected anti-seizure medications. However, in one-third of patients, seizures are resistant to drugs, and other measures will be needed. The primary goal in using experimental therapeutic medication strategies in patients with epilepsy is to prevent recurrent seizures and reduce the rate of traumatic events that may occur during seizures. So far, various treatments using medications have been offered for patients with epilepsies, which have been classified according to the type of epilepsy, the effectiveness of the medications, and the adverse effects. Medications such as Levetiracetam, valproic acid, and lamotrigine are at the forefront of these patients' treatment. Epilepsy surgery, neuro-stimulation, and the ketogenic diet are the main measures in patients with medication-resistant epilepsies. In this paper, we will review the therapeutic approach using anti-seizure medications in patients with epilepsy. However, it should be noted that some of these patients still do not respond to existing treatments; therefore, the limited ability of current therapies has fueled research efforts for the development of novel treatment strategies. Thus, it seems that in addition to surgical measures, we should look for more specific agents that have less adverse events and have a greater effect in stopping seizures.

The effects of lacosamide on cognitive function and psychiatric profiles in patients with epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Cognitive and psychiatric problems are common in people with epilepsy. They can have multiple causes, including structural brain lesions, the active epilepsy, and the effect of anti-epileptic therapy. Since patients' treatment compliance and quality of life are affected by cognitive and emotional status, it is crucial for clinicians to understand how anti-seizure medications (ASMs) affect cognition and mood, and to choose the proper ASM.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a literature review of the impact on cognition and mood status of lacosamide (LCM) in people with epilepsy.

METHODS

Wesearched PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and reference lists of articles for all types of articles with no limitations on publication date.

RESULTS

A total of 251 records were obtained, including 247 articles in PubMed and 4 articles from reference lists. We included 2 meta-analyses, one randomized controlled trials and 14 observational studies after the screening process. Most studies agree LCM has low risk of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) on cognition. Comparisons with other ASMs, LCM may be preferable to carbamazepine, topiramate and perampanel, and not inferior to lamotrigine. In spite of low incident rate, depression is the most common psychiatric change of LCM. There are no consistent positive or negative psychiatric effects of LCM.

CONCLUSION

Lacosamide has limited impact on cognitive and mood status in this review. Several factors including mechanism of co-administration of ASMs and personal history of psychiatric disorder should be considered as important in the development of cognitive and psychiatric side effects. However, the heterogeneity between studies make the quality of evidence weaker and further trials are needed.

The effect of lacosamide on psychiatric comorbidities in patients with epilepsy

•

Lacosamide appears to be a low-risk ASM in people with focal epilepsies.

•

Lacosamide had a high retention rate in patients with psychiatric comorbidities.

•

Lacosamide may provide favorable seizure outcome and improve psychiatric comorbidities in some patients similar to other ASM.

We investigated the efficacy of lacosamide (LCM) polytherapy in improving seizure outcomes and psychiatric symptoms in patients with epilepsy with psychiatric comorbidities. We retrospectively collected data from medical records of outpatients of the Department of Psychiatry of Nishiniigata Chuo Hospital Epilepsy Center in Japan. We extracted data from all patients with epilepsy and psychiatric comorbidities who had been treated with LCM. We evaluated seizure prognosis and changes in psychiatric symptoms after LCM polytherapy. After LCM administration, 19 (47.5%) patients had improvements in seizure outcomes. The other 18 (45%) patients experienced no changes in seizure outcomes, and the remaining 3 (7.5%) patients experienced worse seizure outcomes after LCM polytherapy. LCM administration improved psychiatric symptoms in 21 (52.5%) of the 40 patients; psychiatric symptoms did not change in 14 (35%) patients and worsened in 5 patients (12.5%). There was no significant association between psychiatric and seizure prognoses. LCM polytherapy may have less negative influence on psychiatric comorbidities in patients with epilepsy compared with other antiseizure medications, and may also improve seizure severity. While LCM polytherapy might improve psychiatric symptoms as seizures improve, a small number of patients experienced worsening of psychiatric symptoms despite seizure improvement.