The retention of lacosamide in patients with epilepsy and intellectual disability in three specialised institutions

Investigation of the efficacy and adverse effects of lacosamide over 36 months

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and retention rate of lacosamide (LCM) over 36 months as a treatment for children and adolescents with focal and generalized epilepsy based on a retrospective study.

METHODS

All patients prescribed LCM as monotherapy and add-on therapy between October 2016 and September 2019 at Jichi Children's Medical Center Tochigi were included in the study. The response rate, retention rate, and adverse effects were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 126 (female, n = 73) patients of 1.3 to 34.9 years old (median age: 12.8 years; mean ± SD 13.2 ± 6.6 years) received LCM as monotherapy or add-on treatment for focal, generalized, and combined focal and generalized epilepsy. The response rate was 40.5% at 3 months, 40.5% at 6 months, 38.1% at 9 months, 35.7% at 12 months, 25.9% at 24 months, and 29.4% at 36 months. For 34 patients who were observable for 36 months, the retention rate was 70.6% at 3 months, but then gradually declined to 34.8% at 36 months. According to the number of concomitant anti-seizure medications (ASMs), the retention rate was higher in patients receiving <3 ASMs than in those receiving ≥3 ASMs at all observation points. The most common adverse effects were somnolence in 21 patients (16.7%) and dizziness in 5 patients (39.7%).

CONCLUSION

Our response rate was lower and our retention rate was higher in comparison to a previous study that observed patients over 36 months. Further prospective studies in children are required to confirm the response rate and retention rate in patients treated with LCM over 36 months.

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.

Psychobehavioural and Cognitive Adverse Events of Anti-Seizure Medications for the Treatment of Developmental and Epileptic Encephalopathies

The developmental and epileptic encephalopathies encompass a group of rare syndromes characterised by severe drug-resistant epilepsy with onset in childhood and significant neurodevelopmental comorbidities. The latter include intellectual disability, developmental delay, behavioural problems including attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder, psychiatric problems including anxiety and depression, speech impairment and sleep problems. Classical examples of developmental and epileptic encephalopathies include Dravet syndrome, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and tuberous sclerosis complex. The mainstay of treatment is with multiple anti-seizure medications (ASMs); however, the ASMs themselves can be associated with psychobehavioural adverse events, and effects (negative or positive) on cognition and sleep. We have performed a targeted literature review of ASMs commonly used in the treatment of developmental and epileptic encephalopathies to discuss the latest evidence on their effects on behaviour, mood, cognition, sedation and sleep. The ASMs include valproate (VPA), clobazam, topiramate (TPM), cannabidiol (CBD), fenfluramine (FFA), levetiracetam (LEV), brivaracetam (BRV), zonisamide (ZNS), perampanel (PER), ethosuximide, stiripentol, lamotrigine (LTG), rufinamide, vigabatrin, lacosamide (LCM) and everolimus. Bromide, felbamate and other sodium channel ASMs are discussed briefly. Overall, the current evidence suggest that LEV, PER and to a lesser extent BRV are associated with psychobehavioural adverse events including aggressiveness and irritability; TPM and to a lesser extent ZNS are associated with language impairment and cognitive dulling/memory problems. Patients with a history of behavioural and psychiatric comorbidities may be more at risk of developing psychobehavioural adverse events. Topiramate and ZNS may be associated with negative effects in some aspects of cognition; CBD, FFA, LEV, BRV and LTG may have some positive effects, while the remaining ASMs do not appear to have a detrimental effect. All the ASMs are associated with sedation to a certain extent, which is pronounced during uptitration. Cannabidiol, PER and pregabalin may be associated with improvements in sleep, LTG is associated with insomnia, while VPA, TPM, LEV, ZNS and LCM do not appear to have detrimental effects. There was variability in the extent of evidence for each ASM: for many first-generation and some second-generation ASMs, there is scant documented evidence; however, their extensive use suggests favourable tolerability and safety (e.g. VPA); second-generation and some third-generation ASMs tend to have the most robust evidence documented over several years of use (TPM, LEV, PER, ZNS, BRV), while evidence is still being generated for newer ASMs such as CBD and FFA. Finally, we discuss how a variety of factors can affect mood, behaviour and cognition, and untangling the associations between the effects of the underlying syndrome and those of the ASMs can be challenging. In particular, there is enormous heterogeneity in cognitive, behavioural and developmental impairments that is complex and can change naturally over time; there is a lack of standardised instruments for evaluating these outcomes in developmental and epileptic encephalopathies, with a reliance on subjective evaluations by proxy (caregivers); and treatment regimes are complex involving multiple ASMs as well as other drugs.

Lacosamide effectiveness and tolerability in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy and severe disability under polytherapy: Therapy optimization as emerging from an observational study

OBJECTIVE

We explored the efficacy and safety of lacosamide combined with inhibitors of fast-inactivated sodium channels or with other antiepileptic drugs, in patients with drug refractory focal epilepsy associated with intellectual or psychiatric disability.

METHODS

Observational study of lacosamide including the monitoring of lacosamide trough plasma levels and of electroencephalograms.

RESULTS

We followed up 44 patients from the start of lacosamide therapy for up to 3 years, with a clinical, electroencephalogram (EEG), and pharmacological follow-up. Median patients' age was 32.7 years, median age at epilepsy onset was 3.5 years. Intellectual disability was severe in 55.4% of the cohort and drug refractoriness was diagnosed in 88.6% of patients, who had predominantly focal seizures (80%). The severity of their epilepsy was suggested by the use of combined therapies with non-sodium blockers and sodium blockers in 75% of patients. Lacosamide was added to previous therapies and up-titrated to a median of 300 mg/d. Lacosamide add-on led to simplification of the previous drug regimen with a dose reduction in 87.9% of users of sodium blockers and in 66.7% of users of non-sodium blockers, and to withdrawal of previously administered sodium blockers in 48.5% users and non-sodium blockers in 47.6% users. Lacosamide was prescribed at lower doses in the presence of oxcarbazepine (p = 0.029), lamotrigine (p = 0.015), and topiramate (p < 0.001). Mean lacosamide plasma levels were 6.0 ± 2.4 mg/L; they were in linear correlation with the administered dose (R² = 0.38, p < 0.001) and were influenced by the association with lamotrigine (p = 0.008), zonisamide (p = 0.012), and clobazam (p = 0.028). Lacosamide combination regimens led to an average reduction of 42% in baseline seizure frequency, with 50% patients reporting ≥50% seizure frequency reduction. Efficacy was directly correlated with lacosamide dose (R² = 0.47, p < 0.001, B = 0.53) and trough plasma levels (R² = 0.31, p < 0.001, B = 0.16). Electroencephalogram profiles were improved in 40.9% of patients and EEG improvement was not significantly correlated with seizure frequency reduction. Lacosamide safety was good, with 37 adverse reactions in 30 patients, of which 50% were attributed to lacosamide and led to lacosamide withdrawal in 18% of cases. The retention rate of lacosamide was of 88.6% at 1 year, 86.4% at 2 years, and 72.7% after three years. The severity of intellectual disability was directly correlated with increased possibility of lacosamide retention (OR = 0.46 per severity tier, p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

Lacosamide add-on allowed dose reduction of previous therapies and reduced the frequency of seizures, showing good tolerability even at high doses, without exceeding reference plasma levels.

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.

Clinical experience combined with therapeutic drug monitoring of lacosamide

OBJECTIVE

Lacosamide (LCM) is an antiepileptic drug (AED) with insufficient clinical experience in patients with intellectual disability (ID). They often have more severe epilepsy with comorbidities. The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide (LCM) in patients with refractory epilepsy with and without ID in a real-life setting, taking drug monitoring (TDM) data into account therapeutic.

METHODS

Retrospectively, we identified 344 patients using LCM from the TDM service covering the majority of the country, at the National Center for Epilepsy in Norway (2013-2018). Clinical and TDM data were available for 132 patients.

RESULTS

Forty-four of the 132 patients (33%) had ID. The retention rate was significantly higher in the ID vs the non-ID group after 1 year (84% vs 68%, P < .05). By combining clinical and TDM data, we demonstrated that 37/38 responding patients had serum concentrations above the lower limit of the reference range (>10 µmol/L), and 16/17 with lower concentrations were non-responders. Mean serum concentration/dose ratios were similar in both groups, 0.06 and 0.07 µmol/L/mg. There were no significant differences regarding efficacy and tolerability. The risk of LCM withdrawal was significantly higher when LCM was added to sodium channel blockers, even if the latter was discontinued.

SIGNIFICANCE

Lacosamide was generally well tolerated in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, where one third had ID, and in these patients the retention rate was higher. The combination of clinical and TDM data could possibly facilitate LCM therapy in these vulnerable patients.

Lacosamide in the general population and in people with intellectual disability: Similar responses?

PURPOSE

Epilepsy prevalence is significantly higher in people with Intellectual Disability (ID) compared to people with epilepsy (PWE) from the general population. Increased psychological and behavioural problems, healthcare costs, morbidity, mortality and treatment resistance to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is associated with epilepsy in ID populations. Prescribing AEDs for PWE and ID is challenging and influenced heavily by studies conducted with the general population. Our study compares Lacosamide (LCM) response for the ID population to those from the general population; using data from an UK based epilepsy database register (EP ID/PDD AED Register).

METHODS

Pooled retrospective case notes data for PWE prescribed LCM at 11 UK NHS Trusts were analysed. Participants were classified as per WHO guidance into groups of moderate-profound ID, mild ID and General population. Demographics, concomitant AEDs, starting and maximum dosage, exposure length, adverse effects, dropout rates, seizure frequency were collected. Group differences were reported as odds ratios estimated from univariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Of 232 consented participants, 156 were from the general population and 76 had ID (24 mild, 52 moderate-profound). Twelve month withdrawal rates and reasons, efficacy, side-effects, start and maximum doses were similar between the groups. Dose titration between baseline and three months was significantly slower in the ID group (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

There were no differences for LCM outcomes between general and ID groups. Slower LCM titration in ID populations in the first 3 months was associated with higher retention and lower behavioural side effects as compared to similar European studies.

Adjunctive lacosamide treatment for adult focal-onset epilepsy: focus on comorbid intellectual/developmental disorders and differing responses

Background

Data regarding lacosamide treatment as an adjunctive therapy in patients representative of a focal-onset epilepsy population including those with and without intellectual/developmental disorders (IDDs) are limited.

Purpose

To evaluate the retention rates of lacosamide in focal-onset epilepsy patients with and without IDD.

Patients and methods

We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive electronic and paper medical records of patients diagnosed with focal-onset epilepsy who were treated with lacosamide in two tertiary epilepsy centers.

Results

One hundred and thirty-six patients who met the inclusion criteria were studied. Number of patients with IDD was 46 (33.8%). Median lacosamide dose was 300 mg/day. A total of 39 patients (28.7%) experienced side effects, and 22 of them (16.2%) discontinued lacosamide. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year retention rates of lacosamide in patients with IDD were 68%, 62%, and 53%, respectively. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showed that the retention rates were significantly lower in patients with IDD when compared to patients without IDD (P=0.04). Cox regression analysis showed that concomitant use of sodium channel blocker antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) was the only independent predictor of retention rate of lacosamide treatment (P=0.03). In the subgroup of patients with IDD, the analysis was performed again and the number of background AEDs was the only predictor for the retention rate of lacosamide (P=0.04).

Conclusion

When compared to patients without IDD, retention rates of lacosamide adjunctive therapy were lower in patients with IDD. However, these rates were higher than the rates suggested with previously registered AEDs including lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and topiramate. Therefore, irrespective of having comorbid IDD, we might suggest that lacosamide is a well-retained drug with a high efficacy profile in patients with focal-onset epilepsy.