Intravenous Lacosamide in Pediatric Status Epilepticus: An Open-Label Efficacy and Safety Study

Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study on Safety and Electroencephalographic Response to Lacosamide for Neonatal Seizures

BACKGROUND

There is growing evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of lacosamide in older children. However, minimal data are available for neonates. We aimed to determine the incidence of adverse events associated with lacosamide use and explore the electroencephalographic seizure response to lacosamide in neonates.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from seven pediatric hospitals from January 2009 to February 2020. For safety outcomes, neonates were followed for ≤30 days from index date. Electroencephalographic response of lacosamide was evaluated based on electroencephalographic reports for ≤3 days.

RESULTS

Among 47 neonates, 98% received the first lacosamide dose in the intensive care units. During the median follow-up of 12 days, 19% of neonates died, and the crude incidence rate per 1000 patient-days (95% confidence interval) of the adverse events by diagnostic categories ranged from 2.8 (0.3, 10.2) for blood or lymphatic system disorders and nervous system disorders to 10.5 (4.2, 21.6) for cardiac disorders. Electroencephalographic seizures were observed in 31 of 34 patients with available electroencephalographic data on the index date. There was seizure improvement in 29% of neonates on day 1 and also in 29% of neonates on day 2. On day 3, there was no change in 50% of neonates and unknown change in 50% of neonates.

CONCLUSIONS

The results are reassuring regarding the safety of lacosamide in neonates. Although some neonates had fewer seizures after lacosamide administration, the lack of a comparator arm and reliance on qualitative statements in electroencephalographic reports limit the preliminary efficacy results.

Febrile infection-related epilepsy syndrome in childhood: A clinical review and practical approach

Febrile infection-related epilepsy syndrome (FIRES) of unknown aetiology is an extremely rare but severe epilepsy syndrome. It is characterized by a nonspecific febrile infection a few days before the onset of super-refractory status epilepticus, followed by refractory epilepsy and high morbidity in previously healthy children and young adults. To date, FIRES is incurable and irreversible. The clinical course may depend more on time than on therapy, while the outcome may depend more on the clinical spectrum than on therapy. Based on a literature search, retrospective data analysis, and personal observations, this review aimed to explore the clinical spectrum and therapeutic options for FIRES to improve outcomes by optimized and more standardized diagnosis and therapy, including adapted immunotherapy and a less aggressive approach to manage seizures, as seizure-freeness is difficult to achieve and, therefore, not the primary goal for cryptogenic FIRES.

Safety of intravenous lacosamide in hospitalized children and neonates

OBJECTIVE

Seizures are common in critically ill children and neonates, and these patients would benefit from intravenous (IV) antiseizure medications with few adverse effects. We aimed to assess the safety profile of IV lacosamide (LCM) among children and neonates.

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter cohort study examined the safety of IV LCM use in 686 children and 28 neonates who received care between January 2009 and February 2020.

RESULTS

Adverse events (AEs) were attributed to LCM in only 1.5% (10 of 686) of children, including rash (n = 3, .4%), somnolence (n = 2, .3%), and bradycardia, prolonged QT interval, pancreatitis, vomiting, and nystagmus (n = 1, .1% each). There were no AEs attributed to LCM in the neonates. Across all 714 pediatric patients, treatment-emergent AEs occurring in >1% of patients included rash, bradycardia, somnolence, tachycardia, vomiting, feeling agitated, cardiac arrest, tachyarrhythmia, low blood pressure, hypertension, decreased appetite, diarrhea, delirium, and gait disturbance. There were no reports of PR interval prolongation or severe cutaneous adverse reactions. When comparing children who received a recommended versus a higher than recommended initial dose of IV LCM, there was a twofold increase in the risk of rash in the higher dose cohort (adjusted incidence rate ratio = 2.11, 95% confidence interval = 1.02-4.38).

SIGNIFICANCE

This large observational study provides novel evidence demonstrating the tolerability of IV LCM in children and neonates.

Sporadic and Periodic Interictal Discharges in Critically Ill Children: Seizure Associations and Time to Seizure Identification

PURPOSE

We evaluated interictal discharges (IEDs) as a biomarker for the time to development of electrographic seizures (ES).

METHODS

Prospective observational study of 254 critically ill children who underwent continuous electroencephalography (cEEG) monitoring. We excluded neonates and patients with known epilepsy or the sole cEEG indication to characterize events. Interictal discharges included sporadic epileptiform discharges and periodic and rhythmic patterns. Sporadic epileptiform discharges were categorized as low frequency (rare [<1/hour] and occasional [≥1/hour but <1/minute]) and high frequency (frequent, [≥1/minute] and abundant [≥1/10 seconds]). Time variables included time from cEEG start to first IED and time between first IED and ES.

RESULTS

Interictal discharges were present in 33% (83/254) of patients. We identified ES in 20% (50/254), and 86% (43/50) had IEDs. High-frequency sporadic epileptiform discharges (odds ratio [OR], 35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 14.5-88; P < 0.0001) and lateralized periodic discharges (OR, 27; 95% CI, 7.3-100; P < 0.0001) were associated with ES. Mildly abnormal EEG background without IEDs or background asymmetry was associated with the absence of seizures (OR, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.04-0.3; P < 0.0001). Time from cEEG start to first IED was 36 minutes (interquartile range, 3-131 minutes), and time between first IED and ES was 9.6 minutes (interquartile range, 0.6-165 minutes).

CONCLUSIONS

Interictal discharges are associated with ES and are identified in the first 3 hours of cEEG. High-frequency sporadic epileptiform discharges and periodic patterns have the highest risk of ES. Our findings define a window of high seizure risk after the identification of IEDs in which to allocate resources to improve seizure identification and subsequent treatment.

Current Management of Generalized Convulsive Status Epilepticus in Children

Generalized convulsive status epilepticus (GCSE) in pediatric patients is an emergency condition with high morbidity and mortality and potentially irreversible brain damage, leading to cognitive deterioration, psychomotor retardation, chronic epilepsy with recurring seizures, and other complications. Treatment must be initiated in the impending GCSE phase, within five minutes of the onset of a generalized convulsive seizure. Early initiation of treatment and adequate therapy is a prerequisite for a good patient outcome.

Optimal Management of Status Epilepticus in Children in the Emergency Setting: A Review of Recent Advances

Convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) is the most common neurological emergency in children and the second most common neurological emergency in adults. Mortality is low, but morbidity, including neuro-disability, learning difficulties, and a de-novo epilepsy, may be as high as 22%. The longer the duration of CSE, the more difficult it is to terminate, and the greater the risk of morbidity. Convulsive status epilepticus is usually managed using specific national or local algorithms. The first-line treatment is administered when a tonic-clonic or focal motor clonic seizure has lasted five minutes (impending or premonitory CSE). Second-line treatment is administered when the CSE has persisted after two doses of a first-line treatment (established CSE). Randomised clinical trial (RCT) evidence supports the use of benzodiazepines as a first-line treatment of which the most common are buccal or intra-nasal midazolam, rectal diazepam and intravenous lorazepam. Alternative drugs, for which there are considerably less RCT data, are intra-muscular midazolam and intravenous clonazepam. Up until 2019, phenobarbital and phenytoin (or fosphenytoin) were the preferred second-line treatments but with no good supporting RCT evidence. Robust RCT data are now available which has provided important information on second-line treatments, specifically phenytoin (or fosphenytoin), levetiracetam and sodium valproate. Lacosamide is an alternative second-line treatment but with no supporting RCT evidence. Current evidence indicates that first, buccal or intranasal midazolam or intravenous lorazepam are the most effective and the most patient and carer-friendly first-line anti-seizure medications to treat impending or premonitory CSE and second, that there is no difference in efficacy between levetiracetam, phenytoin (or fosphenytoin) or sodium valproate for the treatment of established CSE. Pragmatically, levetiracetam or sodium valproate are preferred to phenytoin (or fosphenytoin) because of their ease of administration and lack of serious adverse side-effects, including potentially fatal cardiac arrhythmias. Sodium valproate must be used with caution in children aged three and under because of the rare risk of hepatotoxicity and particularly if there is an underlying mitochondrial disorder.

Efficacy and safety of lacosamide in pediatric patients with epilepsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Lacosamide (LCM), is a third-generation antiseizure medicine, with limited clinical evidence for use in pediatric populations. We aimed to evaluate evidence for the efficacy and safety of LCM in pediatric patients with epilepsy.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using literature published from inception to February 2022 identified in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and four Chinese databases. Efficacy and safety outcome data were collected, and a meta-analysis was performed.

RESULT

Twenty-one studies involving 1230 pediatric patients were included. The median percent reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline to maintenance was 33.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 22.7%, 43.5%). After 6 months of treatment, the 50%, 75%, and 100% responder rates were 53.3% (95% CI 40.7%, 65.9%), 28.3% (95% CI 20.8%, 35.8%), and 20.4% (95% CI 12.6%, 28.2%), respectively. After 12 months of treatment, the 50%, 75%, and 100% responder rates were 42.0% (95% CI 29.5%, 54.5%), 19.5% (95% CI 11.1%, 27.8%), and 15.2% (95% CI 6.6%, 23.8%), respectively. The most common adverse events (AEs) were drowsiness (15.0%), dizziness (9.9%), and somnolence (8.3%).

CONCLUSION

Lacosamide is generally effective and well tolerated to use in children with epilepsy. However, further research with high-quality data and long-term follow-up of LCM use in pediatric populations is needed.

Status Epilepticus-Work-Up and Management in Children

Status epilepticus (SE) is one of the most common neurological emergencies in children and has a mortality of 2 to 4%. Admissions for SE are very resource-consuming, especially in refractory and super-refractory SE. An increasing understanding of the pathophysiology of SE leaves room for improving SE treatment protocols, including medication choice and timing. Selecting the most efficacious medications and giving them in a timely manner may improve outcomes. Benzodiazepines are commonly used as first line and they can be used in the prehospital setting, where most SE episodes begin. The diagnostic work-up should start simultaneously to initial treatment, or as soon as possible, to detect potentially treatable causes of SE. Although most etiologies are recognized after the first evaluation, the detection of more unusual causes may become challenging in selected cases. SE is a life-threatening medical emergency in which prompt and efficacious treatment may improve outcomes. We provide a summary of existing evidence to guide clinical decisions regarding the work-up and treatment of SE in pediatric patients.

Treatment of Refractory Convulsive Status Epilepticus: A Comprehensive Review by the American Epilepsy Society Treatments Committee

Purpose:

Established tonic–clonic status epilepticus (SE) does not stop in one-third of patients when treated with an intravenous (IV) benzodiazepine bolus followed by a loading dose of a second antiseizure medication (ASM). These patients have refractory status epilepticus (RSE) and a high risk of morbidity and death. For patients with convulsive refractory status epilepticus (CRSE), we sought to determine the strength of evidence for 8 parenteral ASMs used as third-line treatment in stopping clinical CRSE.

Methods:

A structured literature search (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL) was performed to identify original studies on the treatment of CRSE in children and adults using IV brivaracetam, ketamine, lacosamide, levetiracetam (LEV), midazolam (MDZ), pentobarbital (PTB; and thiopental), propofol (PRO), and valproic acid (VPA). Adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), magnesium sulfate, and pyridoxine were added to determine the effectiveness in treating hard-to-control seizures in special circumstances. Studies were evaluated by predefined criteria and were classified by strength of evidence in stopping clinical CRSE (either as the last ASM added or compared to another ASM) according to the 2017 American Academy of Neurology process.

Results:

No studies exist on the use of ACTH, corticosteroids, or IVIg for the treatment of CRSE. Small series and case reports exist on the use of these agents in the treatment of RSE of suspected immune etiology, severe epileptic encephalopathies, and rare epilepsy syndromes. For adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists on the effectiveness of brivaracetam (level U; 4 class IV studies). For children and adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists on the effectiveness of ketamine (level U; 25 class IV studies). For children and adults with CRSE, it is possible that lacosamide is effective at stopping RSE (level C; 2 class III, 14 class IV studies). For children with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists that LEV and VPA are equally effective (level U, 1 class III study). For adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support the effectiveness of LEV (level U; 2 class IV studies). Magnesium sulfate may be effective in the treatment of eclampsia, but there are only case reports of its use for CRSE. For children with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support either that MDZ and diazepam infusions are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study) or that MDZ infusion and PTB are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study). For adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support either that MDZ infusion and PRO are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study) or that low-dose and high-dose MDZ infusions are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study). For children and adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that MDZ is effective as the last drug added (level U; 29 class IV studies). For adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that PTB and PRO are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study). For adults and children with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that PTB is effective as the last ASM added (level U; 42 class IV studies). For CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that PRO is effective as the last ASM used (level U; 26 class IV studies). No pediatric-only studies exist on the use of PRO for CRSE, and many guidelines do not recommend its use in children aged <16 years. Pyridoxine-dependent and pyridoxine-responsive epilepsies should be considered in children presenting between birth and age 3 years with refractory seizures and no imaging lesion or other acquired cause of seizures. For children with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists that VPA and diazepam infusion are equally effective (level U, 1 class III study). No class I to III studies have been reported in adults treated with VPA for CRSE. In comparison, for children and adults with established convulsive SE (ie, not RSE), after an initial benzodiazepine, it is likely that loading doses of LEV 60 mg/kg, VPA 40 mg/kg, and fosphenytoin 20 mg PE/kg are equally effective at stopping SE (level B, 1 class I study).

Conclusions:

Mostly insufficient evidence exists on the efficacy of stopping clinical CRSE using brivaracetam, lacosamide, LEV, valproate, ketamine, MDZ, PTB, and PRO either as the last ASM or compared to others of these drugs. Adrenocorticotropic hormone, IVIg, corticosteroids, magnesium sulfate, and pyridoxine have been used in special situations but have not been studied for CRSE. For the treatment of established convulsive SE (ie, not RSE), LEV, VPA, and fosphenytoin are likely equally effective, but whether this is also true for CRSE is unknown. Triple-masked, randomized controlled trials are needed to compare the effectiveness of parenteral anesthetizing and nonanesthetizing ASMs in the treatment of CRSE.

Therapeutic Options for Patients with Refractory Status Epilepticus in Palliative Settings or with a Limitation of Life-Sustaining Therapies: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Refractory status epilepticus (RSE) represents a serious medical condition requiring early and targeted therapy. Given the increasing number of elderly or multimorbid patients with a limitation of life-sustaining therapy (LOT) or within a palliative care setting (PCS), guidelines-oriented therapy escalation options for RSE have to be omitted frequently.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review sought to summarize the evidence for fourth-line antiseizure drugs (ASDs) and other minimally or non-invasive therapeutic options beyond guideline recommendations in patients with RSE to elaborate on possible treatment options for patients undergoing LOT or in a PCS.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, focusing on fourth-line ASDs or other minimally or non-invasive therapeutic options was performed in February and June 2020 using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. The search terminology was constructed using the name of the specific ASD or therapy option and the term 'status epilepticus' with the use of Boolean operators, e.g. "(brivaracetam) AND (status epilepticus)". The respective Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Emtree terms were used, if available.

RESULTS

There is currently no level 1, grade A evidence for the use of ASDs in RSE. The best evidence was found for the use of lacosamide and topiramate (level 3, grade C), followed by brivaracetam, perampanel (each level 4, grade D) and stiripentol, oxcarbazepine and zonisamide (each level 5, grade D). Regarding non-medicinal options, there is little evidence for the use of the ketogenic diet (level 4, grade D) and magnesium sulfate (level 5, grade D) in RSE. The broad use of immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive treatment options in the absence of a presumed autoimmune etiology cannot be recommended; however, if an autoimmune etiology is assumed, steroid pulse, intravenous immunoglobulins and plasma exchange/plasmapheresis should be considered (level 4, grade D). Even if several studies suggested that the use of neurosteroids (level 5, grade D) is beneficial in RSE, the current data situation indicates that there is formal evidence against it.

CONCLUSIONS

RSE in patients undergoing LOT or in a PCS represents a challenge for modern clinicians and epileptologists. The evidence for the use of ASDs in RSE beyond that in current guidelines is low, but several effective and well-tolerated options are available that should be considered in this patient population. More so than in any other population, advance care planning, advance directives, and medical ethical aspects have to be considered carefully before and during therapy.

Antiseizure medications in critical care: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Seizures and status epilepticus are very common diagnoses in the critically ill patient and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There is an abundance of research on the utility of antiseizure medications in this setting, but limited randomized-controlled trials to guide the selection of medications in these patients. This review examines the current guidelines and treatment strategies for status epilepticus and provides an update on newer antiseizure medications in the critical care settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Time is brain applies to status epilepticus, with delays in treatment corresponding with worsened outcomes. Establishing standardized treatment protocols within a health system, including prehospital treatment, may lead to improved outcomes. Once refractory status epilepticus is established, continuous deep sedation with intravenous anesthetic agents should be effective. In cases, which prove highly refractory, novel approaches should be considered, with recent data suggesting multiple recently approved antiseizure medications, appropriate therapeutic options, as well as novel approaches to upregulate extrasynaptic γ-aminobutyric acid channels with brexanolone.

SUMMARY

Although there are many new treatments to consider for seizures and status epilepticus in the critically ill patient, the most important predictor of outcome may be rapid diagnosis and treatment. There are multiple new and established medications that can be considered in the treatment of these patients once status epilepticus has become refractory, and a multidrug regimen will often be necessary.

Safety and tolerability profile of new antiepileptic drug treatment in children with epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

Treatment of pediatric epilepsy requires a careful evaluation of the safety and tolerability profile of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) to avoid or minimize as much as possible adverse events (AEs) on various organs, hematological parameters, and growth, pubertal, motor, cognitive and behavioral development.

AREAS COVERED

Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) reported in the literature 2000-2018 regarding second- and third-generation AEDs used in the pediatric age, with exclusion of the neonatal period that exhibits specific peculiarities, have been described on the basis of their frequency, severity/tolerability, and particular association with a given AED.

EXPERT OPINION

Somnolence/sedation and behavioral changes, like irritability and nervousness, are among the most commonly observed TEAEs associated with almost all AEDs. Lamotrigine, Gabapentin, Oxcarbazepine, and Levetiracetam appear to be the best-tolerated AEDs with a ≤2% withdrawal rate, while Tiagabine and Everolimus are discontinued in up to >20% of the patients because of intolerable TEAEs. For some AEDs, literature data are scanty to draw a high-level evidence on their safety and tolerability profile. The reasons are: insufficient population size, short duration of treatments, or lack of controlled trials. A future goal is that of identifying clearer, easier, and more homogeneous methodological strategies to facilitate AED testing in pediatric populations.

Intravenous lacosamide (LCM) in status epilepticus (SE): Weight-adjusted dose and efficacy

BACKGROUND

Some studies suggest higher efficacy of lacosamide (LCM) in status epilepticus (SE) with higher loading doses; however, this weight-adjusted dose has not been evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to evaluate the relationship between loading weight-adjusted dose and efficacy of LCM in SE.

METHODS

A group of patients with SE treated with LCM from Spanish hospitals was examined retrospectively. Demographic data, type of SE, etiology, response rate, last antiepileptic drug (AED) used, treatment line in which LCM was used, total loading dose, and weight-adjusted dose were collected.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-five cases of SE were collected; 87 (52.7%) patients had nonconvulsive SE. Mean age was 64.2 ± 17.2 and 60.6% (n = 100) were men. Regarding etiology, SE was considered as acute symptomatic in 85 (51.5%), remote symptomatic in 51 (30.9%), progressive symptomatic in 10 (6.1%), and cryptogenic in 19 (11.5%). Lacosamide was used as the third drug in 46.1%, and as a second option in 28%. In 115 patients, clonazepam had been used as the first option, and no benzodiazepines had been administered in the remaining 50. The median loading dose was 400 mg (100-600 mg), and the weight-adjusted dose was 5 mg/kg (3-6 mg/kg). The response rate was 63.3%, and 55.1% responded within the first 12 h. Efficacy was significantly higher in patients who had taken benzodiazepines at LCM loading doses >5.3 mg/kg (p = 0.006). This relationship was maintained independent of using other concomitant AEDs. However, if benzodiazepines were not taken, this relationship was not found.

CONCLUSIONS

In adults with benzodiazepine-resistant SE, the response rate to LCM was higher, with weight-adjusted doses above 5.3 mg/kg.

Effectiveness and Adverse Effect of Intravenous Lacosamide in Nonconvulsive Status Epilepticus and Acute Repetitive Seizures in Children

Nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) and acute repetitive seizures (ARS) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Due to the lack of randomized-controlled trials of intravenous antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in these conditions, trials of a new generation of AEDs in this aspect are needed. A prospective interventional study was conducted in children under 18 years of age with NCSE or ARS who either had contraindication to or were refractory to first-line AEDs and received intravenous lacosamide. Demographic data, the efficacy of treatment, and adverse effects were recorded. Eleven patients with a median age of 11 years, predominantly female (72.7%), were enrolled. Average loading dose was 227 mg (8.3 mg/kg/dose) and average daily maintenance dose was 249 mg (4.6 mg/kg/dose). All patients (100%) experienced a reduction in seizure frequency within 24 hours. Eight of eleven patients (72.7%) experienced a reduction in seizure frequency of more than 50% by the end of the study, and one patient became seizure-free. In terms of adverse events, one patient had a bradycardia without prolongation of the PR interval. Interestingly, there was a case of neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis in which a significant improvement in seizure control was achieved. The results indicate that intravenous lacosamide may be an alternative treatment for NCSE or ARS in children. To our knowledge, this is the first study on the use of intravenous lacosamide in Asian children. This study is registered to Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) and the trial registration number is TCTR20180508004.

A Review of the New Antiepileptic Drugs for Focal-Onset Seizures in Pediatrics: Role of Extrapolation

Most antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) receive regulatory approval for children years after the drug is available in adults, encouraging off-label use of the drug in children and hindering attempts to obtain quality pediatric data in controlled trials. Extrapolating adult efficacy data to pediatrics can reduce the time between approval in adults and that in children. To extrapolate efficacy from adults to children, several assumptions must be supported, such as (1) a similar disease progression and response to interventions in adults and children, and (2) similar exposure response in adults and children. The Pediatric Epilepsy Academic Consortium for Extrapolation (PEACE) addressed these assumptions in focal-onset seizures (FOS), the most common seizure type in both adults and children. PEACE reviewed the biological and clinical evidence that supported the assumptions that children with FOS have a similar disease progression and response to intervention as adults with FOS. After age 2 years, the pathophysiological underpinnings of FOS and the biological milieu in which seizures are initiated and propagated in children, seizure semiology, electroencephalographic features, etiology and AED response to FOS in children are similar to those in adults with FOS. PEACE concluded that extrapolation of efficacy data in adults to pediatrics in FOS is supported by strong scientific and clinical evidence. However, safety and pharmacokinetic (PK) data cannot be extrapolated from adults to children. Based on extrapolation, eslicarbazepine is now approved for children with FOS, down to age 4 years. Perampanel, lacosamide and brivaracetam are now undergoing PK and safety studies for the purposes of extrapolation down to age 2 or 4 years. When done in conjunction with PK and safety investigations in children, extrapolation of adult data from adults to children can reduce the time delay between approval of effective and safe AEDs in adults and approval in children.

Safety of intravenous lacosamide in critically ill children

PURPOSE

Acute seizures are common in critically ill children. These patients would benefit from intravenous anti-seizure medications with few adverse effects. We reviewed the usage and effects of intravenous lacosamide in critically ill children with seizures or status epilepticus.

METHODS

This retrospective series included consecutive patients who received at least one dose of intravenous lacosamide from April 2011 to February 2016 in the pediatric intensive care unit of a quaternary care children's hospital, including patients with new lacosamide initiation and continuation of outpatient oral lacosamide. Dosing and prescribing practices were reviewed. Adverse effects were defined by predefined criteria, and most were evaluated during the full admission.

RESULTS

We identified 51 intensive care unit admissions (47 unique patients) with intravenous lacosamide administration. Lacosamide was utilized as a third or fourth-line anti-seizure medication for acute seizures or status epilepticus in the lacosamide-naïve cohort. One patient experienced bradycardia and one patient experienced a rash that were considered potentially related to lacosamide. No other adverse effects were identified, including no evidence of PR interval prolongation.

CONCLUSIONS

Lacosamide was well tolerated in critically ill children. Further study is warranted to evaluate the effectiveness of earlier lacosamide use for pediatric status epilepticus and acute seizures.

Cognitive and Behavioral Comorbidities: An Unwanted Effect of Antiepileptic Drugs in Children

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders and, despite optimally chosen and dosed antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), approximately 20%-30% of patients will continue to have seizures. Behavior and cognition are negatively impacted by seizures, but AEDs are also a major contributor to behavioral and cognitive deficits. However, the cognitive and behavioral effect of AEDs in children is insufficiently emphasized in the literature. This review summarizes the cognitive and behavioral effects of AEDs in the pediatric population with the objective of helping pediatricians and pediatric neurologists to select the AEDs with the best profile for their individual patient's needs.

Lacosamide in Pediatric Status Epilepticus

Investigators from Baylor College of Medicine studied the efficacy of lacosamide in pediatric status epilepticus (SE).

Lacosamide in status epilepticus: Systematic review of current evidence

OBJECTIVE

The intravenous formulation of lacosamide (LCM) and its good overall tolerability and safety favor the use in status epilepticus (SE). The aim of this systematic review was to identify and evaluate studies reporting on the use of LCM in SE.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of electronic databases using a combined search strategy from 2008 until October 2016. Using a standardized assessment form, information on the study design, methodologic framework, data sources, efficacy, and adverse events attributed to LCM were extracted from each publication and systematically reported.

RESULTS

In total, 522 SE episodes (51.7% female) in 486 adults and 36 children and adolescents were evaluated with an overall LCM efficacy of 57%. Efficacy was comparable between use in nonconvulsive (57%; 82/145) and generalized-convulsive (61%; 30/49; p = 0.68) SE, whereas overall success rate was better in focal motor SE (92%; 34/39, p = 0.013; p < 0.001). The efficacy with later positioning of LCM decreased from 100% to 20%. The main adverse events during treatment of SE are dizziness, abnormal vision, diplopia, and ataxia. Overall, lacosamide is well tolerated and has no clinically relevant drug-drug interactions.

SIGNIFICANCE

The available data regarding the use of LCM in SE are promising, with a success rate of 57%. The strength of LCM is the lack of interaction potential and the option for intravenous use in emergency situations requiring rapid uptitration.

The efficacy of lacosamide as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy in focal epilepsy and its use in status epilepticus: clinical trial evidence and experience

Lacosamide (LCM) is approved for anticonvulsive treatment in focal epilepsy and exhibits its function through the slow inactivation of voltage-gated sodium channels (VGSCs). LCM shows comparable efficacy with other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) licensed in the last decade: in three randomized placebo-controlled trials, significant median seizure reduction rates of 35.2% for 200 mg/day, 36.4-39% for 400 mg/day and 37.8-40% for 600 mg/day were reported. Likewise, 50% responder rates were 38.3-41.1% for 400 mg/day and 38.1-41.2% for 600 mg/day. Similar rates were reported in post-marketing studies. The main adverse events (AEs) are dizziness, abnormal vision, diplopia and ataxia. Overall, LCM is well tolerated and has no clinically-relevant drug-drug interactions. Due to the drug's intravenous availability, its use in status epilepticus (SE) is increasing, and the available data are promising.