Rational polytherapy with lacosamide in clinical practice: results of a Spanish cohort analysis RELACOVA

Pre- and Post-Exposure Prophylaxis for HIV in Patients Taking Anti-Seizure Medications

The prevention of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection has recently emphasized the use of pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP and PEP), both of which were highly effective in prevention of HIV infection. Since the last published guidance regarding the cotreatment of people with anti-seizure medications (ASM) and antiretroviral treatments (ARTs) in 2012, both fields have numerous new medication options. Historically, cotreatment of HIV and seizures could be challenging with increased risk of virologic failure and barriers in access to health care due to global availability, social determinants of health, and stigma of both HIV and seizures. In this narrative review, we describe the data-driven and expected bidirectional pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions between guideline-based PrEP and PEP treatment and ASM, as well as overlapping side effects. There are many ASMs with no known interaction with PrEP or PEP regimens. The interactions focus on enzyme inducing ASMs, valproate, and lamotrigine. Most prominently, enzyme inducing ASMs lower serum levels of tenofovir-containing PrEP regimens and elements of PEP (dolutegravir, raltegravir, and ritonavir), which increased risk of virologic treatment failure in people with HIV but have unclear clinical significance on the effectiveness of PrEP and PEP. In addition, ritonavir treatment in PEP may significantly lower lamotrigine serum levels even during the 4 weeks of treatment, which may increase risk for breakthrough seizures during PEP and skin reactions after discontinuation of ritonavir. In addition to PK interactions, overlapping side effects are common including osteopenia, hepatic toxicity, and other gastrointestinal effects. This narrative review aims to be a resource for all clinicians prescribing ASMs so that they can create a welcoming environment to enable successful treatment of seizures and reduce the risk of HIV infection in people at risk. In addition, we highlight knowledge gaps and areas of unmet need that can be addressed with future studies.

Adjunctive brivaracetam and sustained seizure frequency reduction in very active focal epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the effectiveness of brivaracetam (BRV) according to baseline seizure frequency and past treatment history in subjects with focal epilepsy who were included in the Brivaracetam Add-On First Italian Network Study (BRIVAFIRST).

METHODS

BRIVAFIRST was a 12-month retrospective, multicenter study including adults prescribed adjunctive BRV. Study outcomes included sustained seizure response (SSR), sustained seizure freedom (SSF), and the rates of treatment discontinuation and adverse events (AEs). Baseline seizure frequency was stratified as <5, 5-20, and >20 seizures per month, and the number of prior antiseizure medications (ASMs) as <5 and ≥6.

RESULTS

A total of 994 participants were included. During the 1-year study period, SSR was reached by 45.8%, 39.3%, and 22.6% of subjects with a baseline frequency of <5, 5-20, and >20 seizures per month (p < .001); the corresponding figures for the SSF were 23.4%, 9.8%, and 2.8% (p < .001). SSR was reached by 51.2% and 26.5% participants with a history of 1-5 and ≥6 ASMs (p < .001); the corresponding rates of SSF were 24.7% and 4.5% (p < .001). Treatment discontinuation due to lack of efficacy was more common in participants with >20 seizures compared to those with <5 seizures per month (25.8% vs. 9.3%, p < .001), and in participants with history of ≥6 prior ASMs compared to those with history of 1-5 ASMs (19.6% vs. 12.2%, p = .002). There were no differences in the rates of BRV withdrawal due to AEs and the rates of AEs across the groups of participants defined according to the number of seizures at baseline and the number of prior ASMs.

SIGNIFICANCE

The baseline seizure frequency and the number of previous ASMs were predictors of sustained seizure frequency reduction with adjunctive BRV in subjects with focal epilepsy.

Effectiveness and safety of Lacosamide therapy for children with focal epilepsy: a real world study

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness and safety of the new antiepileptic drug, lacosamide (LCM) with Levetiracetam, for the treatment of focal epilepsy in children. Methods: This study was a cohort study. Children with focal epilepsy who received LCM or Levetiracetam treatment in West China Second Hospital of Sichuan University were recruited and followed up for 12 months. Changes in the frequency of epilepsy, 50% and 75% responder rates, and seizure freedom rates from baseline to the maintenance period and adherence score were assessed. In addition, adverse events (AEs) were recorded. Results: 92 patients completed the study, and were divided into two groups: LCM (n = 46) and Levetiracetam (n = 46). Participants were aged from 2 to 16.3 years, with a mean epilepsy duration of 2.57 years. The average maintenance dose of LCM was 5.03 ± 1.91 mg/kg/d after the titration period. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the mean seizure frequency during subsequent visits at 1, 3,6, 9, 12 months. There was significant difference between the two groups in terms of the 50% responder rate at 6 months. No serious AEs were reported in both groups. The vast majority of patients had good adherence (adherence score = 4) in the LCM group. Conclusion: LCM is effective as adjunctive therapy in children with epilepsy and has good safety, tolerability and adherence. Large sample size studies with long-term follow-up are needed in the future to comprehensively evaluate the use of LCM in children. Clinical Trial Registration: [https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=41041], identifier [ChiCTR1900024507].

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.

Adherence to and persistence with lacosamide, perampanel, lamotrigine, and levetiracetam in adult patients with focal epilepsy in Japan: A descriptive cohort study using a claims database

Objective

We evaluated adherence to and 1-year persistence of two third-generation anti-seizure medications (ASMs), lacosamide and perampanel, in adult patients with focal epilepsy, compared with lamotrigine and levetiracetam.

Methods

A cohort study was conducted using a Japanese health insurance claims database (JMDC Inc.). We identified patients with adult-onset focal epilepsy who initiated any of the four ASMs between August 31, 2016, and October 31, 2019. Patients were further classified into ASM-naïve patients initiating any of the four ASMs as first-line treatment, and ASM-experienced patients initiating any of the four ASMs as second- or later-line treatment. Outcomes included adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC], defined as the total number of days covered by ASMs divided by the total number of days in the follow-up period) and 1-year persistence for the four ASMs.

Results

We identified 141 lacosamide, 75 perampanel, 80 lamotrigine, and 530 levetiracetam initiators. Among these, the proportion of ASM-naïve patients was highest in the levetiracetam group (60.8%), followed by the lamotrigine (25.0%), lacosamide (20.6%), and perampanel groups (1.3%). Mean PDC (standard deviation) was similar across the four groups, at 0.95 (0.08) for lacosamide, 0.93 (0.12) for perampanel, 0.92 (0.10) for lamotrigine and 0.94 (0.11) for levetiracetam. The proportion of patients persisting with treatment for 1 year was highest in the lacosamide group (73.0%), followed by the levetiracetam (58.3%), lamotrigine (57.5%), and perampanel groups (54.7%). In ASM-naïve patients, adherence and 1-year persistence were almost identical in the lacosamide, lamotrigine, and levetiracetam groups. Results for ASM-experienced patients did not significantly differ from those of all patients.

Significance

With regard to adherence and 1-year persistence, lacosamide may be equal to or better than lamotrigine and levetiracetam, especially in patients with experienced ASM, while perampanel may be comparable to lamotrigine and levetiracetam in patients with experienced ASM.

Scoping review of rational polytherapy in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy

There is a paucity of literature regarding the optimal selection of combination antiseizure medications (ASMs) for drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). The aim of this scoping review is to evaluate current evidence related to "rational polytherapy" among adults with DRE. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-SCr) guidelines, PubMed, ProQuest, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases were searched using DRE- and polytherapy-related keywords. The exclusion criteria applied included: non-English; non-human studies; non-research studies; participants less than 18 years; status epilepticus; ASM monotherapy; and certain ASMs. In Covidence, two researchers independently reviewed articles for inclusion at each phase, with a third resolving conflicts. Data were extracted, with quality appraisal using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Of the 6477 studies imported for screening, 33 studies were included. Clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes were reported by 26, 12, and one study, respectively. Common efficacy-related clinical outcomes included ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency (n = 14), seizure freedom (n = 14), and percent reduction in seizure frequency (n = 8). Common humanistic outcomes included quality of life (n = 4), medication adherence (n = 2), sleep-related outcomes (n = 2), and physician and patient global assessments (n = 2). The economic study reported quality-adjusted life years. The median MMAT score was 80 (range: 60-100). Two studies referenced the standard definition of DRE, whereas five studies did not specifically define DRE. Gaps in the literature include limited generalizability, minimal reports in pregnancy, and lack of optimal ASM combinations, among others. Strengths of the evidence include addressing a variety of outcomes. Inconsistent definitions of DRE, small sample sizes, and heterogeneity among studies limit the ability to draw meaningful conclusions. Optimal combinations of ASMs for rational polytherapy for DRE is unclear.

Brivaracetam as Early Add-On Treatment in Patients with Focal Seizures: A Retrospective, Multicenter, Real-World Study

INTRODUCTION

In randomized controlled trials, add-on brivaracetam (BRV) reduced seizure frequency in patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Most real-world research on BRV has focused on refractory epilepsy. The aim of this analysis was to assess the 12-month effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive BRV when used as early or late adjunctive treatment in patients included in the BRIVAracetam add-on First Italian netwoRk Study (BRIVAFIRST).

METHODS

BRIVAFIRST was a 12-month retrospective, multicenter study including adult patients prescribed adjunctive BRV. Effectiveness outcomes included the rates of sustained seizure response, sustained seizure freedom, and treatment discontinuation. Safety and tolerability outcomes included the rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) and the incidence of AEs. Data were compared for patients treated with add-on BRV after 1-2 (early add-on) and ≥ 3 (late add-on) prior antiseizure medications.

RESULTS

A total of 1029 patients with focal epilepsy were included in the study, of whom 176 (17.1%) received BRV as early add-on treatment. The median daily dose of BRV at 12 months was 125 (100-200) mg in the early add-on group and 200 (100-200) in the late add-on group (p < 0.001). Sustained seizure response was reached by 97/161 (60.3%) of patients in the early add-on group and 286/833 (34.3%) of patients in the late add-on group (p < 0.001). Sustained seizure freedom was achieved by 51/161 (31.7%) of patients in the early add-on group and 91/833 (10.9%) of patients in the late add-on group (p < 0.001). During the 1-year study period, 29 (16.5%) patients in the early add-on group and 241 (28.3%) in the late add-on group discontinued BRV (p = 0.001). Adverse events were reported by 38.7% and 28.5% (p = 0.017) of patients who received BRV as early and late add-on treatment, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Brivaracetam was effective and well tolerated both as first add-on and late adjunctive treatment in patients with focal epilepsy.

Effectiveness and tolerability of lacosamide in children with drug resistant epilepsy

We retrospectively studied the efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide (LCM) in children with drug-resistant epilepsy in a tertiary care centre in the Netherlands, from 2013 till 2019, with a follow-up of two years. 79 children, aged < 18 years, were included. Retention rate, effectiveness, reason for termination, and side-effects were analysed. Furthermore, prognostic variables for discontinuation as well as the incidence of side-effects were determined. The LCM retention rate and effectiveness of response were analysed at three, twelve and twenty-four months. The retention rate of LCM was respectively 89.9 %, 68.4 % and 54.4 %. LCM gave an effective response in 60.5 %, 67.9 % and 71.4 % of the participants who were still using LCM at the three follow-up periods. Lack of efficacy was most frequently reported as a reason for discontinuation (58.3 %). Side-effects occurred in 50.6 % of the patients, somnolence (18.2 %) being the most common, followed by behavioural changes (15.6 %), headache (9.1 %) and dizziness (9.1 %). Use of ≥ 1 sodium channel blocker (SCB) was associated with an increased risk (OR = 4.038) of side-effects. An increasing number of anti-seizure medications (ASM) was associated with a reduced risk (OR = 0.524) of stopping LCM. To conclude, LCM is an effective ASM with acceptable side-effects in children with drug-resistant epilepsy.

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.

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.

Adjunctive Brivaracetam in Focal Epilepsy: Real-World Evidence from the BRIVAracetam add-on First Italian netwoRk STudy (BRIVAFIRST)

BACKGROUND

In randomized controlled trials, add-on brivaracetam (BRV) reduced seizure frequency in patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Studies performed in a naturalistic setting are a useful complement to characterize the drug profile.

OBJECTIVE

This multicentre study assessed the effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive BRV in a large population of patients with focal epilepsy in the context of real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

The BRIVAFIRST (BRIVAracetam add-on First Italian netwoRk STudy) was a retrospective, multicentre study including adult patients prescribed adjunctive BRV. Patients with focal epilepsy and 12-month follow-up were considered. Main outcomes included the rates of seizure-freedom, seizure response (≥ 50% reduction in baseline seizure frequency), and treatment discontinuation. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was also considered. Analyses by levetiracetam (LEV) status and concomitant use of strong enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications (EiASMs) and sodium channel blockers (SCBs) were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1029 patients with a median age of 45 years (33-56) was included. At 12 months, 169 (16.4%) patients were seizure-free and 383 (37.2%) were seizure responders. The rate of seizure freedom was 22.3% in LEV-naive patients, 7.1% in patients with prior LEV use and discontinuation due to insufficient efficacy, and 31.2% in patients with prior LEV use and discontinuation due to AEs (p < 0.001); the corresponding values for ≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction were 47.9%, 29.7%, and 42.8% (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in seizure freedom and seizure response rates by use of strong EiASMs. The rates of seizure freedom (20.0% vs. 16.6%;  p = 0.341) and seizure response (39.7% vs. 26.9%; p = 0.006) were higher in patients receiving SCBs than those not receiving SCBs; 265 (25.8%) patients discontinued BRV. AEs were reported by 30.1% of patients, and were less common in patients treated with BRV and concomitant SCBs than those not treated with SCBs (28.9% vs. 39.8%; p = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

The BRIVAFIRST provided real-world evidence on the effectiveness of BRV in patients with focal epilepsy irrespective of LEV history and concomitant ASMs, and suggested favourable therapeutic combinations.

A prospective, multicenter, noninterventional study in Taiwan to evaluate the safety and tolerability of lacosamide as adjunctive therapy for epilepsy in clinical practice

RATIONALE

Lacosamide (LCM) was initially approved in Taiwan in March 2014 for use as adjunctive therapy for focal impaired awareness seizures and secondarily generalized seizures (SGS) in patients with epilepsy ≥16 years of age. The efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive LCM for the treatment of patients with focal seizures have been demonstrated in randomized, placebo-controlled trials. However, the trials do not reflect a flexible dose setting. This study (EP0063) was conducted to assess the safety and tolerability of LCM in real-world clinical practice in Taiwan. Effectiveness of LCM was also assessed as an exploratory objective.

METHODS

EP0063 was a multicenter, prospective, noninterventional study with an expected observation period of 12 months ± 60 days. Eligible patients were ≥16 years of age, had focal impaired awareness seizures and/or SGS (in line with approved indication in Taiwan at the time of the study), were taking at least one concomitant antiseizure medication (ASM), and had at least one seizure in the 3 months before baseline. Patients were prescribed LCM by their treating physician in the course of routine clinical practice. The primary safety variable was treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) spontaneously reported to, or observed by, the treating physician. Based on safety data from previous studies of LCM and known side effects of other ASMs, certain TEAEs (including but not limited to cardiac and electrocardiogram, suicidality, and rash related terms) were analyzed separately. Effectiveness variables included Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) and change in 28-day seizure frequency from baseline to 12 months (or final visit), and freedom from focal seizures.

RESULTS

A total of 171 patients were treated with LCM, of whom 139 (81.3%) completed the study. The Kaplan-Meier estimated 12-month retention was 82.9%. Patients had a mean (standard deviation [SD], range) age of 38.5 (14.0, 16-77) years, and 96 (56.1%) were male. Patients were taking a mean (SD, range) of 2.8 (1.1, 1-6) ASMs at baseline. Mean (SD, range) duration of LCM treatment was 288.7 (111.9, 2-414) days, and the mean (SD, range) daily dosage of LCM was 205.0 (82.7, 50.0-505.2) mg/day. Overall, 95 (55.6%) patients reported at least one TEAE, most commonly dizziness (33 [19.3%] patients). Drug-related TEAEs were reported in 74 (43.3%) patients, and drug-related TEAEs leading to discontinuation of LCM were reported in 14 (8.2%) patients. Two (1.2%) patients died during LCM treatment, which were considered not related to LCM. Two (1.2%) patients had suicidality-related TEAEs; these TEAEs were considered either not related to LCM or the relationship was not recorded. Rash-related TEAEs were reported in five (2.9%) patients (considered LCM-related in two patients). Based on the CGIC, at 12 months (or final visit), 109 (63.7%) patients were considered to have improved, 54 (31.6%) had no change, and the remaining eight (4.7%) were minimally worse. At 12 months (or final visit), the median percentage change in focal seizure frequency was -50.0. During the first 6 months of the study, 21 (12.3%) patients were free from focal seizures; 37 (21.6%) patients were free from focal seizures in the last 6 months of the study; and 14 (8.2%) were free from focal seizures for the full 12 months of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this prospective, noninterventional study suggest that adjunctive LCM was generally safe and well tolerated in this patient group in real-world practice in Taiwan. Effectiveness was also favorable, with more than 60% of patients considered to be improved by their physician at 12 months (or final visit).

Pharmacodynamic interactions of antiepileptic drugs: From bench to clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Approximately 50% of patients do not achieve seizure control with antiepileptic drug (AED) monotherapy, and polytherapy, with more than one AED, is often required. To date, no evidence-based criteria on how to combine AEDs exist.

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review aimed to provide critical findings of the available literature about the role of pharmacodynamic AEDs' interactions in patients whose epilepsies were treated with polytherapy.

METHODS

Electronic databases, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) and Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), were systematically searched to identify relevant studies on pharmacodynamic AEDs' interactions in patients with epilepsy.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Most data on AED combinations are coming from animal models and preclinical studies. Combining AEDs with different mechanisms of actions seems to have greater effectiveness and lower risk of adverse event development. Conversely, the combination of AEDs may cause pharmacodynamic synergistic effects that may result in not only increased efficacy but also more adverse effects. Despite some AED associations that have been proven to be effective in specific epilepsy/seizure type (e.g., phenobarbital+/phenytoin for tonic seizures and ethosiximide + valproate for absences; lamotrigine + valproate for various epilepsy/seizure types), no clear and definitive evidence exists about AED combinations in humans. Examples of pharmacodynamic interactions that possibly explain the synergistic effects on efficacy or adverse effects include the combination between vigabatrin or pregabalin and sodium channel blockers (supra-additive antiseizure effect) and lacosamide combined with other sodium channel blockers (infra-additive antiseizure effect and neurotoxicity synergistic). The pharmacodynamic lamotrigine-valproate interaction is also supported by synergistic adverse events. Therefore, well-designed double-blind prospective studies recruiting a sufficient number of patients possibly with a crossover design and carefully ascertain the role of pharmacokinetic interactions and variations of AEDs' levels in the blood are needed.

The adverse-effect profile of lacosamide

Introduction: Lacosamide has been used in epilepsy patients in the United States, Europe and Asia since it was approved by the FDA in 2008. Many patients have benefited from this drug as a new generation of sodium channel blocker. With the worldwide use of this drug, its adverse effects have gradually emerged, especially some rare adverse events.Areas covered: The present review aims to summarize the adverse effects of lacosamide reported in the literature in recent years to promote the safe clinical application of the drug.Expert opinion: In more than 10 years of experience in drug usage, adverse reactions of lacosamide have also been gradually discovered. The review showed that lacosamide is safe and effective in antiepileptic treatment, and its common side effects are dizziness, headache, drowsiness, diplopia, and cardiovascular abnormalities. Skin rashes, hematotoxicity and heart damage, psychological symptoms and suicide risk have also been reported and emphasized.

The role of polytherapy in the management of epilepsy: suggestions for rational antiepileptic drug selection

Introduction: Antiepileptic polytherapy may be indicated in patients experiencing drug-resistant epilepsy. To date, there are no evidence-based criteria on how to combine different antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) together, in order to obtain the best therapeutic response.Areas covered: This paper reviews the available data about the various associations of AEDs in patients undergoing polytherapy, focusing on the most effective and well-tolerated polytherapies. Moreover, some controversial aspects of this topic are addressed.Expert opinion: Nowadays, there are no guidelines on polytherapy in patients with epilepsy; thus, the management of pharmacoresistant epilepsy is still uncertain, except for valproate/lamotrigine combination, which seems to be the only one recommended. Data regarding mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, tolerability, and, more importantly, the analysis of the valuable clinical studies of drug combinations can help physicians to choose the best and most effective AED association for each patient.

Genomic and clinical predictors of lacosamide response in refractory epilepsies

OBJECTIVE

Clinical and genetic predictors of response to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are largely unknown. We examined predictors of lacosamide response in a real-world clinical setting.

METHODS

We tested the association of clinical predictors with treatment response using regression modeling in a cohort of people with refractory epilepsy. Genetic assessment for lacosamide response was conducted via genome-wide association studies and exome studies, comprising 281 candidate genes.

RESULTS

Most patients (479/483) were treated with LCM in addition to other AEDs. Our results corroborate previous findings that patients with refractory genetic generalized epilepsy (GGE) may respond to treatment with LCM. No clear clinical predictors were identified. We then compared 73 lacosamide responders, defined as those experiencing greater than 75% seizure reduction or seizure freedom, to 495 nonresponders (<25% seizure reduction). No variants reached the genome-wide significance threshold in our case-control analysis.

SIGNIFICANCE

No genetic predictor of lacosamide response was identified. Patients with refractory GGE might benefit from treatment with lacosamide.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs before and after lacosamide initiation as adjunctive therapy among patients with epilepsy in the United States

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate all-cause and epilepsy-specific healthcare resource utilization and costs following lacosamide (LCM) initiation as adjunctive therapy for the treatment of epilepsy.

METHODS

A noninterventional retrospective database analysis was conducted that examined patients diagnosed as having epilepsy who added LCM to existing antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy between 2009 and 2016 (the first LCM prescription was the index event). This study used a single-case design whereby patients served as their own controls. Patients were further required to have a minimum of 12 months of continuous eligibility before (preindex period) and after (postindex period) their index event. In the 12-month postindex period, the only allowed AED regimen change was the addition of LCM. Demographic and clinical characteristics were measured at index and during the preindex period, respectively. All-cause and epilepsy-specific healthcare resource utilization and costs were measured and compared in the pre- and postindex periods. Paired t- and McNemar's tests were conducted to assess the significant differences between pre- and postindex. Univariate analyses were used to analyze the impact of LCM on specific subpopulations.

RESULTS

The study sample comprised of 2171 patients: mean (standard deviation [SD]) age: 38.9 (19.3) years; 52.6% female. Just over half (56%) of these patients were on monotherapy before adding LCM. Prior to adding LCM, 28.8% of patients had an epilepsy-specific inpatient (IP) admission, and 35.7% of patients had an all-cause IP admission, compared with 18.2% and 26.1% of patients in the post-LCM period, respectively (both p < 0.0001). Likewise, 35.6% of patients had an epilepsy-specific emergency room (ER) visit, and 50.0% had an all-cause ER visit prior to adding LCM, compared with 23.8% and 42.1% in post-LCM, respectively (both p < 0.0001). After adding LCM, one-year mean [SD] epilepsy-specific IP admission costs decreased by 42.9% ($13,647 [$52,290] to $7788 [$32,321]), and all-cause IP admission costs decreased by 38.6% ($20,654 [$72,716] to $12,688 [$46,120]) (both p < 0.0001). One-year epilepsy-specific mean [SD] ER costs decreased by 35.2% ($691 [$1756] to $448 [$1909]; p < 0.0001), and all-cause ER cost decreased by 17.8% ($1217 [$3014] to $1000 [$2970]; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Epilepsy-related IP hospitalizations and ER visits (indicators of seizures) were significantly reduced in patients with epilepsy 12 months after adding LCM as an adjunctive therapy to existing AED treatment in a real-world setting, leading to reduced healthcare resource utilization and epilepsy costs.

Efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive lacosamide in pediatric patients with focal seizures

Objective

To evaluate efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive lacosamide in children and adolescents with uncontrolled focal (partial-onset) seizures.

Methods

In this double-blind trial (SP0969; NCT01921205), patients (age ≥4–<17 years) with uncontrolled focal seizures were randomized (1:1) to adjunctive lacosamide/placebo. After a 6-week titration, patients who reached the target dose range for their weight (<30 kg: 8–12 mg/kg/d oral solution; ≥30–<50 kg: 6–8 mg/kg/d oral solution; ≥50 kg: 300–400 mg/d tablets) entered a 10-week maintenance period. The primary outcome was change in focal seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline to maintenance.

Results

Three hundred forty-three patients were randomized; 306 (lacosamide 152 of 171 [88.9%]; placebo 154 of 172 [89.5%]) completed treatment (titration and maintenance). Adverse events (AEs) were the most common reasons for discontinuation during treatment (lacosamide 4.1%; placebo 5.8%). From baseline to maintenance, percent reduction in focal seizure frequency per 28 days for lacosamide (n = 170) vs placebo (n = 168) was 31.7% (p = 0.0003). During maintenance, median percent reduction in focal seizure frequency per 28 days was 51.7% for lacosamide and 21.7% for placebo. Fifty percent responder rates (≥50% reduction) were 52.9% and 33.3% (odds ratio 2.17, p = 0.0006). During treatment, treatment-emergent AEs were reported by 67.8% lacosamide-treated patients (placebo 58.1%), most commonly (≥10%) somnolence (14.0%, placebo 5.2%) and dizziness (10.5%, placebo 3.5%).

Conclusions

Adjunctive lacosamide was efficacious in reducing seizure frequency and generally well tolerated in patients (age ≥4–<17 years) with focal seizures.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:

NCT01921205.

Classification of evidence

This trial provides Class I evidence that for children and adolescents with uncontrolled focal seizures, adjunctive lacosamide reduces seizure frequency.

Safety and tolerability of adjunctive lacosamide in a pediatric population with focal seizures - An open-label trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate safety and tolerability of adjunctive lacosamide in children with focal seizures.

METHODS

Patients were eligible for this open-label, fixed-titration trial (SP0847; NCT00938431) if aged 1 month-17 years with focal seizures taking 1-3 antiepileptic drugs. Findings from Cohort 1, aged 5-11 years, who received lacosamide ≤8 mg/kg/day, informed dosing for age-based cohorts 2-5, who then received ≤12 mg/kg/day (≤600 mg/day). Oral lacosamide was initiated at 2 mg/kg/day (1 mg/kg bid) and uptitrated by 2 mg/kg/day/week to the maximum cohort-defined dose (maximum trial duration: 13 weeks). Patients who did not achieve the maximum cohort-defined dose were discontinued.

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients (aged 6 months-≤17 years) enrolled (≥1 month-<4 years: n = 15; ≥4-<12 years: n = 23; ≥12-≤17 years: n = 9). 24/47 (51.1%) patients completed the trial at the maximum cohort-defined dose and 40/47 (85.1%) continued lacosamide in the extension trial. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 42/47 (89.4%) patients. The most common TEAEs (≥10% of patients) were vomiting (21.3%), diarrhea (14.9%), somnolence (12.8%), irritability, dizziness, and pyrexia (10.6% each). Twenty (42.6%) patients discontinued due to TEAEs, most commonly vomiting (8.5%), gait disturbance, dizziness, and somnolence (6.4% each). Six (12.8%) patients reported serious TEAEs, most commonly status epilepticus (3/47; 6.4%).

CONCLUSION

This fixed-titration trial supports the safety of adjunctive lacosamide in children (aged 6 months-≤17 years) with focal seizures. The TEAE profile was generally consistent with that observed in trials in adults, and no new safety concerns were identified.

BRIVA-LIFE-A multicenter retrospective study of the long-term use of brivaracetam in clinical practice

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate long-term effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam in clinical practice in patients with focal epilepsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a multicenter retrospective study. Patients aged ≥16 years were started on brivaracetam from November 2016 to June 2017 and followed over 1 year. Data were obtained from medical records at 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment initiation for evaluation of safety- and seizure-related outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 575 patients were included in analyses; most had been treated with ≥4 lifetime antiepileptic drugs. Target dosage was achieved by 30.6% of patients on the first day. Analysis of primary variables at 12 months revealed that mean reduction in seizure frequency was 36.0%, 39.7% of patients were ≥50% responders and 17.5% were seizure-free. Seizure-freedom was achieved by 37.5% of patients aged ≥65 years. Incidence of adverse events (AEs) and psychiatric AEs (PAEs) was 39.8% and 14.3%, respectively, and discontinuation due to these was 8.9% and 3.7%, respectively. Somnolence, irritability, and dizziness were the most frequently reported AEs. At baseline, 228 (39.7%) patients were being treated with levetiracetam; most switched to brivaracetam (dose ratio 1:10-15). Among those who switched because of PAEs (n = 53), 9 (17%) reported PAEs on brivaracetam, and 3 (5.7%) discontinued because of PAEs. Tolerability was not highly affected among patients with learning disability or psychiatric comorbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large population of patients with predominantly drug-resistant epilepsy, brivaracetam was effective and well-tolerated; no unexpected AEs occurred over 1 year, and the incidence of PAEs was lower compared with levetiracetam.

Lacosamide in children with drug-resistant epilepsy

AIM

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of lacosamide in paediatric clinical practice.

METHODS

A search of our hospital's pharmacy database yielded all children <16 years old dispensed lacosamide for drug-resistant epilepsy between January 2011 and June 2016. Medical records were reviewed for clinical and drug details. Continued treatment for ≥12 months was considered an indicator of effectiveness and tolerability.

RESULTS

A total of 107 children (61 boys) satisfied inclusion criteria. Median age at lacosamide commencement was 9.9 years (interquartile range 6.7-13.7). Of those children, 57 (53%) children had focal epilepsy, with focal motor or impaired awareness seizures most commonly reported; 50 (47%) children had generalised epilepsy, most with tonic-clonic seizures, tonic seizures or epileptic spasms; 83 (78%) children had an intellectual disability, 24 (22%) had a physical disability and 22 (21%) had an autism spectrum disorder; 69 (65%) children continued lacosamide for ≥12 months. Reasons for discontinuation before 12 months in 38 (35%) children included ineffectiveness in 25 (66%), adverse events in 7 (18%) and worsening of seizures in 2 (5%). The most common adverse events were drowsiness, behavioural changes, unsteadiness, nausea and vomiting. Epilepsy type and comorbidities were not associated with continuation or reasons for discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

Most children continued treatment with lacosamide, suggesting effectiveness and tolerability. Lacosamide may prove to be a useful, 'broad-spectrum' antiepileptic medication in children for focal and generalised epilepsies and in association with comorbidities.

Switching from traditional sodium channel blockers to lacosamide in patients with epilepsy

PURPOSE

Lacosamide (LCM) is a recently developed sodium channel blocker (SCB), which acts mainly on the slow activation state in sodium channels. Although LCM shares a range of dose-dependent adverse effects with traditional SCBs, it has several advantages in that it does not induce hepatic drug metabolizing enzymes and has less risk of drug interactions and idiosyncratic adverse effects.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and tolerability of switching from traditional SCBs to LCM. The reason for the switch was classified as insufficient efficacy, adverse effects, or concern about metabolic derangement, resulting in conditions such as atherosclerosis and osteoporosis, with long-term use of traditional SCBs.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients were switched to LCM from traditional SCBs. The overall rate of successful switching was high (81.3%, 61/75 patients). However, the success rate was strongly dependent on the reason for the switch; patients with insufficient efficacy on SCBs had less chance of a successful switch (71.8%, 28/39 patients) than those with adverse effects (89.5%, 17/19) or concerns about metabolic derangement (94.1%, 16/17, p =  0.038). Patients with insufficient efficacy were significantly younger (p =  0.004) and had a higher chance of drug-resistant epilepsy (p =  0.004) than those in the other two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that switching from traditional SCBs to LCM is usually successful and the likelihood of a successful switch is higher in patients when the reason for the switch is adverse effects or concerns about metabolic derangement on traditional SCBs.

Efficacy and tolerability of treatment with lacosamide: Postmarketing experience from the Middle East region

PURPOSE

Lacosamide (LCM) was recently introduced in the Middle East. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of LCM in patients with focal onset seizures and determine if our results are comparable with those derived from Western countries.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis from two medical centers on consecutive patients diagnosed as having focal onset seizures and treated with add-on LCM. The primary efficacy variables were the 50% responder and seizure-free rates, and the secondary outcome variables included the percentages of patients who achieved seizure remission during the last 6-month follow-up period and the percentages of discontinuation due to lack of efficacy or tolerability.

RESULTS

One hundred four patients with a mean age of 30.9 years and experiencing a mean of 9.4 seizures per month during baseline were included. The 50% responder rates were 69% and 70% at 6- and 24-month follow-ups, respectively. Patients concomitantly treated with a sodium channel blocker were less likely to achieve seizure remission during the last 6-month follow-up period while the early introduction of LCM resulted in a significantly higher likelihood of achieving such a remission. Eighty-eight percent of patients were still maintained on LCM at the last follow-up, and the most common adverse events consisted of dizziness and somnolence, double vision, and nausea/vomiting.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show similar efficacy and tolerability to those reported from Western countries. Our results also substantiate the early introduction of LCM and support the dose reduction of baseline AED especially that of sodium channel blockers to minimize adverse events.

Clinical and electrocorticographic response to antiepileptic drugs in patients treated with responsive stimulation

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to explore whether chronic electrocorticographic (ECoG) data recorded by a responsive neurostimulation system could be used to assess clinical responses to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs).

METHODS

Antiepileptic drugs initiated and maintained for ≥3 months by patients participating in clinical trials of the RNS^® System were identified. Such "AED Starts" that produced an additional ≥50% reduction in patient-reported clinical seizure frequency were categorized as clinically beneficial, and the remaining as not beneficial. Electrocorticographic features recorded by the RNS^® Neurostimulator were analyzed during three periods: 3 months before the AED Start, first month after the AED Start, and the first 3 months after the AED Start.

RESULTS

The most commonly added medications were clobazam (n = 41), lacosamide (n = 96), levetiracetam (n = 31), and pregabalin (n = 25). Across all four medications, there were sufficient clinical data for 193 AED Starts to be included in the analyses, and 59 AED Starts were considered clinically beneficial. The proportion of AED Starts that qualified as clinically beneficial was higher for clobazam (53.7%) and levetiracetam (51.6%) than for lacosamide (18.8%) and pregabalin (12%). Across all AED Starts for which RNS ECoG detection settings were held constant, the clinically beneficial AED Starts were associated with a significantly greater reduction in the detection of epileptiform activity (p < 0.001) at 1 (n = 33) and 3 months (n = 30) compared with AED Starts that were not beneficial at 1 (n = 71) and 3 months (n = 60). Furthermore, there was a significant reduction in interictal spike rate and spectral power (1-125 Hz) associated with a clinically beneficial response to an AED Start at 1 (n = 32) and 3 months (n = 35) (p < 0.001). These reductions were not observed at either 1 (n = 59) or 3 months (n = 60) for AED Starts that were not clinically beneficial.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant quantitative changes in ECoG data recorded by the RNS System were observed in patients who experienced an additional clinical response to a new AED. While there was variability across patients in the changes observed, the results suggest that quantitative ECoG data may provide useful information when assessing whether a patient may have a favorable clinical response to an AED.

Lacosamide: A Review in Focal-Onset Seizures in Patients with Epilepsy

Lacosamide (Vimpat^®) is a functionalized amino acid (available orally and intravenously) approved in the EU and the USA for use as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy for the treatment of focal-onset seizures in adults, adolescents and children aged ≥ 4 years with epilepsy. In adults and adolescents (aged ≥ 16 years), oral lacosamide as adjunctive therapy to other antiepileptic drugs was generally effective in reducing seizure frequency during short-term (up to 18 weeks) treatment, with efficacy sustained over the longer-term (up to 8 years). Moreover, patients were effectively switched from adjunctive oral lacosamide to the same dosage of intravenous lacosamide. Oral lacosamide was an effective conversion to monotherapy agent in this patient population and as monotherapy demonstrated noninferiority to carbamazepine controlled release in terms of seizure freedom. Antiepileptic benefits were maintained during longer-term (≤ 2 years) monotherapy. The antiepileptic efficacy of lacosamide in children aged ≥ 4 years has been extrapolated from data from adults and adolescents, with a similar response expected provided paediatric dosage adaptations are used and safety is demonstrated. Indeed, preliminary data demonstrated the efficacy of short-term (16 weeks) adjunctive lacosamide in patients aged ≥ 4 to < 17 years. Oral lacosamide was generally well tolerated over the short- and longer-term when administered as adjunctive therapy, a conversion to monotherapy agent and monotherapy in adults and adolescents and when administered as adjunctive therapy in children aged ≥ 4 years. Thus, lacosamide is a useful option for the management of focal-onset seizures across a broad age range, starting as early as 4 years of age.

Efficacy and tolerability of adjuvant lacosamide: The role of clinical characteristics and mechanisms of action of concomitant AEDs

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to analyze the effectiveness and long-term tolerability of adjuvant lacosamide (LCM) in a multicenter cohort. We aim to assess outcomes of LCM-containing antiepileptic drug (AED) combinations based upon 'mechanism of action' (MoA) and patient's clinical features.

METHODS

Consecutive patients commenced on LCM, with focal epilepsy were identified from three Australian hospitals. The 12-month efficacy endpoints were greater than 50% reduction in seizure frequency (responders) and seizure freedom. Tolerability endpoints were cessation of LCM for any reason, cessation due to side-effects and censoring due to inefficacy. Outcomes were assessed according to concomitant AEDs according to their MoA and the clinical risk factor profile.

RESULTS

Three hundred ten patients were analyzed and followed for median 17.3months. Two hundred ninety-nine (97%) had drug-resistant epilepsy, and 155 (50%) had tried more than 7 AEDs at LCM commencement. Adjuvant LCM was associated with responder and seizure freedom rate of 29% and 9% respectively at 12months. Lower baseline seizure frequency, a prior 6-month period of seizure freedom at any time since epilepsy diagnosis and being on fewer concomitant AEDs were predictive of 12-month seizure freedom. Previous focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), lower baseline seizure frequency, and concomitant AED reduction after LCM commencement were associated with improved LCM tolerability. No specific MoA AED combinations offered any efficacy or tolerability advantage.

SIGNIFICANCE

Adjuvant LCM is associated with seizure freedom rates of 9% at 12months after commencement and is predicted by lower prior seizure frequency, a period of 6months or longer of seizure freedom since diagnosis and fewer concomitant AEDs. While the broad MoA of concomitant AEDs did not influence efficacy or tolerability outcomes, we have provided a framework that may be utilized in future studies to help identify optimal synergistic AED combinations.

Lacosamide treatment of childhood refractory focal epilepsy: the first reported side effect in paediatric patients

PURPOSE

Lacosamide (LCM) is an effective antiepileptic drug (AED) approved for the treatment of focal epilepsy in both children and adults. The aim of this observational study was to review our centre's experience with LCM and to characterise its efficacy and tolerability as an adjunct therapy in children with refractory focal epilepsy.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 12 paediatric patients who underwent treatment with LCM from January 2014 to December 2015. We recorded the treatment response at three time points: at 3 and 6 months after LCM therapy and at the final follow-up visit. Children showing seizure reduction ≥ 50% were considered responders.

RESULTS

We included 12 patients (five boys), and their mean age was 13.8 years (range: 6.2-17.6 years) at the end of LCM treatment. The average length of follow-up after starting LCM was 23 months (11-37 months). Eight patients (66%) had > 50% reduction in seizures at the 3-month follow-up visit, and seven (58%) had > 50% reduction at the 6-month follow-up visit. Six patients (50%) maintained ≥ 50% reduction in seizures at the final follow-up visit. Two patients (16.6%) were seizure free at the 6-month and final follow-up visits. Common adverse side effects included dizziness, ataxia, nausea, and vomiting. Two patients developed status epilepticus (SE), one each at 3 and 11 days after the first LCM dose; they both discontinued treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study points to the efficacy of LCM in a small paediatric group. Furthermore, it was important to report status epilepticus after LCM administration in the paediatric population for the first time.

Selecting Rational Drug Combinations in Epilepsy

Monotherapy remains the standard initial therapy of epilepsy, but when the first antiepileptic drug (AED) fails, combination therapy may be considered. The choice of combination therapy should take into consideration pharmacokinetic interactions, as well as pharmacodynamic interactions related to mechanism of action. There is evidence that an AED combination with different mechanisms of action is more likely to be successful than a combination with the same mechanisms. The combination of lamotrigine and valproate has been demonstrated to be synergistic in its efficacy. However, there are limited data to support other synergistic AED combinations.

Lacosamide and concomitant use of antiepileptic and other medications in a US population - A retrospective cohort study

Information on the use of lacosamide and concomitant antiepileptic and non-antiepileptic drugs (non-AEDs) is available from clinical trials and observational studies with small sample sizes. This retrospective cohort study was conducted to gain insight into the use of lacosamide in a large number of patients with epilepsy in real-life clinical practice with less restrictive selection criteria compared with clinical trial participants. The Truven Health MarketScan (Commercial Claims and Medicare Supplemental) database was used to identify patients with a prior diagnosis of epilepsy with at least one prescription claim for lacosamide between June 2009 and September 2013 and continuous health insurance enrolment with medical and pharmacy coverage during the 1-year pre-index baseline period. A total of 8859 eligible patients were identified, of whom, at index (lacosamide initiation), 16.8% received lacosamide as monotherapy and 54.0% as polytherapy. The median prescription duration was 196days (Interquartile range 69-476days). Levetiracetam was the most frequently prescribed concomitant AED across all age groups, followed by phenytoin among older (>65years) and lamotrigine among younger patients. Older patients who had LCM monotherapy at initiation, were prescribed fewer concomitant AEDs, but more non-AEDs. The most common non-AED medications were prescribed for pain, psychiatric conditions, hyperlipidemia and gastrointestinal diseases across all age groups. Overall, results suggest that the lacosamide use is driven predominantly by age and that there is substantial use of lacosamide monotherapy (16.8%), despite lack of indication at the time of the study. Results also reveal substantial use of concomitant non-AEDs; 90.4% among patients >65years of age and 54.3% among those ≤17years, confirming the high prevalence of comorbidities among patients with epilepsy across all ages. Despite the availability of numerous newer AEDs, older AEDs are still being frequently prescribed, especially for elderly patients, notably phenytoin. This warrants careful consideration, given the strong propensity of enzyme-inducing AEDs to interact with other drugs, producing unwanted side effects. These results highlight the value of real-life prescription patterns and the potential in informing treatment decisions to ensure patients receive appropriate treatment.

Switching to eslicarbazepine acetate in patients with epilepsy: a field-practice observation

Aim: To provide field-practice information on the safety and efficacy of eslicarbazepine. Patients & methods: Patients who switched from carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine to eslicarbazepine were consecutively and retrospectively identified in two Italian reference centers for the treatment of epilepsy. Results: Eighteen patients with a mean age of 39 ± 16 years were recruited. Mean monthly seizure frequency was 18 ± 22 (range: 2–59) before switching to eslicarbazepine, and decreased to 11 ± 18 (0–56) after switching (p = 0.03). The monthly number of seizures decreased in 16/18 patients (89%) and it remained unchanged in one. Six patients became seizure-free after switching, five of whom had underwent overnight switch. The mean score of the adverse event profile questionnaire before switching was 42.5 ± 9.5 and it decreased to 35.0 ± 6.4 with eslicarbazepine therapy; 8/11 patients (73%) reported improved scores. Conclusion: Although the limited number of patients should be taken into account, switching to eslicarbazepine allowed a reduction of monthly number of seizures in about 55% of patients. Furthermore, eslicarbazepine showed a good safety profile with a potential lower impact on quality of life of patients.

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.

[Russian experience of lacosamide (vimpat) usage in treatment of uncontrolled focal epilepsy]

Many patients with epilepsy receive treatment in polytherapy. Selection of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for the combination should be carried out in accordance with the principles of rational polytherapy, taking into account the mechanism of action, pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) properties of drugs. Along with levetiracetam, gabapentin, vigabatrin and pregabalin, lacosamide (LCM) shows superior PK profile in rating of all AED and can be combined with any of them. The goal of this study was to evaluate efficacy and tolerability of LCM in patients with uncontrolled partial onset seizures (POS) in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

181 patient's charts from 14 sites in Russia have been analyzed in retrospective manner. Patients 16 years old and older with POS with or without secondary generalization were included. Documented observation period of up to 12 months after initiation or until discontinuation of LCM therapy. Primary effectiveness variables was retention at Observational Point 3 (approximately 12 months). Other variables were: percentage change from historical baseline in seizure frequency, 50% and 75% treatment response and seizure-free status at the Observational Points 1, 2 and 3 (approximately 3, 6 and 12 months) and incidence and reason of treatment discontinuation.

RESULTS

retention rate was high with 89.5% after 12-month observation. The development of seizure frequency showed a continuous decrease in terms of 50%, 75% treatment respond rates and seizure free status. A total of 5 adverse drug reactions leading to discontinuation of LCM therapy were recorded in 5 of 181 patients (2.8%) during the observation period. The high retention rate observed in this retrospective chart review is assumed to indicate a good tolerability and effectiveness of an adjunctive LCM treatment in patients with uncontrolled partial epilepsy in Russia.

LAM study: Effects of lacosamide on behaviour and quality of life in patients with epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

Psychiatric comorbidities are common in epileptic patients, and evaluating the impact of antiepileptic drugs on patients' moods is therefore essential. The aim of this study is to assess the effects of lacosamide on behaviour and quality of life in people with epilepsy.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre prospective observational study of poorly-controlled epileptic patients who received lacosamide as an adjuvant treatment. Patients were evaluated on 4 occasions during a 12-month period. The impact of lacosamide on patients' mood and quality of life was assessed with the Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory-10 (QOLIE-10), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11). As a secondary objective, we evaluated the effectiveness and safety of lacosamide.

RESULTS

We included 55 patients with a mean age of 47.1±18.4 years. At baseline, 34.5% of the patients had psychiatric comorbidities; the mean number of crises in the previous month was 3.6±4.3. The QOLIE-10 and HADS scales revealed statistically significant improvements in patients with a poor baseline condition (anxiety, depression, and/or poor quality of life). The BIS-11 scale detected no impulsive behaviour during follow-up. After 12 months of treatment, 51.9% of the patients were seizure-free and 77.8% experienced a reduction of at least 50% in seizure frequency. Adverse effects were mild in most cases; lacosamide was discontinued in 10 patients (18.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Lacosamide is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with epilepsy and psychiatric comorbidities.

Chiropractic Management of a Patient With Chronic Fatigue: A Case Report

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this case report was to describe the examination and management of a patient with chronic fatigue.

CLINICAL FEATURES

A 34-year-old woman presented to a chiropractic clinic with complaints of fatigue and inability to lose weight for 2 years. When tested, she was found to have high serum thyroglobulin antibodies, low serum vitamin D3, low saliva dehydroepiandrosterone-sulfate, and low saliva total and diurnal cortisol.

INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME

The patient was placed on an anti-inflammatory ancestral diet and given recommendations to decrease the aerobic intensity of her exercise routine. On the basis of the result of conventional and functional laboratory tests, she was prescribed a treatment plan of targeted supplementation. After 12 weeks of application of dietary, lifestyle, and supplementation recommendations, the patient reported experiencing increased energy and weight loss of 15 pounds. Her thyroglobulin antibodies returned within reference range, salivary cortisol increased and closely followed the proper circadian rhythm, and dehydroepiandrosterone-sulfate increased.

CONCLUSIONS

This report describes improvement in a patient with chronic fatigue with the use of nonpharmaceutical polytherapy involving dietary changes, lifestyle modification, and supplementation.

NEOPLASM study: Real-life use of lacosamide in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy

BACKGROUND

The choice of antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE) is complicated, and there are a lack of robust clinical trial data to date.

METHODS

The NEOPLASM (Neuroncologic Patients treated with LAcoSaMide) study was a 6-month, multicenter, retrospective, observational study in patients with BTRE treated with lacosamide. Patients were started on lacosamide because of a lack of efficacy or adverse events (AEs) with prior AEDs or suitability versus other AEDs, according to clinical practice. The primary efficacy variable was the seizure-free rate at 6months. Safety variables included the proportion of patients with an AE and the proportion with an AE that led to discontinuation.

RESULTS

Overall, 105 patients from 14 hospital centers were included in the analysis. Treatment with lacosamide for 6months resulted in a 30.8% seizure-free rate, and 66.3% of patients had a ≥50% seizure reduction (responders). In the subset of patients included because of a lack of efficacy with prior AEDs, seizure-free rates were 28.0%, and 66.7% of patients were responders. No statistically significant differences in efficacy were observed according to the mechanism of action or enzyme-inducing properties of concomitant AEDs. Adverse events were reported by 41.9% of patients at 6months, and 4.7% of them led to discontinuation. The most common AEs were somnolence/fatigue and dizziness. Notably, 57.1% of the patients who were switched to lacosamide because of AEs with their previous therapy did not report any AE at 6-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In this open-label, observational study, lacosamide appeared to be effective and well tolerated in a large population of patients with BTRE. Lacosamide may therefore be a promising option for the treatment of patients with BTRE.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of lacosamide monotherapy versus controlled-release carbamazepine in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy: a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Further options for monotherapy are needed to treat newly diagnosed epilepsy in adults. We assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of lacosamide as a first-line monotherapy option for these patients.

METHODS

In this phase 3, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial, patients from 185 epilepsy or general neurology centres in Europe, North America, and the Asia Pacific region, aged 16 years or older and with newly diagnosed epilepsy were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio, via a computer-generated code, to receive lacosamide monotherapy or controlled-release carbamazepine (carbamazepine-CR) twice daily. Patients, investigators, and trial personnel were masked to treatment allocation. From starting doses of 100 mg/day lacosamide or 200 mg/day carbamazepine-CR, uptitration to the first target level of 200 mg/day and 400 mg/day, respectively, took place over 2 weeks. After a 1-week stabilisation period, patients entered a 6-month assessment period. If a seizure occurred, the dose was titrated to the next target level (400 or 600 mg/day for lacosamide and 800 or 1200 mg/day for carbamazepine-CR) over 2 weeks with a 1-week stabilisation period, and the 6-month assessment period began again. Patients who completed 6 months of treatment and remained seizure-free entered a 6-month maintenance period on the same dose. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients remaining free from seizures for 6 consecutive months after stabilisation at the last assessed dose. The predefined non-inferiority criteria were -12% absolute and -20% relative difference between treatment groups. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01243177.

FINDINGS

The trial was done between April 27, 2011, and Aug 7, 2015. 888 patients were randomly assigned treatment. 444 patients taking lacosamide and 442 taking carbamazepine-CR were included in the full analysis set (took at least one dose of study treatment), and 408 and 397, respectively, were included in the per-protocol set. In the full analysis set, 327 (74%) patients in the lacosamide group and 308 (70%) in the carbamazepine-CR group completed 6 months of treatment without seizures. The proportion of patients in the full analysis set predicted by the Kaplan-Meier method to be seizure-free at 6 months was 90% taking lacosamide and 91% taking carbamazepine-CR (absolute treatment-difference: -1·3%, 95% CI -5·5 to 2·8 relative treatment difference: -6·0%). Kaplan-Meier estimates results were similar in the per-protocol set (92% and 93%; -1·3%, -5·3 to 2·7; -5·7%). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 328 (74%) patients receiving lacosamide and 332 (75%) receiving carbamazepine-CR. 32 (7%) patients taking lacosamide and 43 (10%) taking carbamazepine-CR had serious treatment-emergent adverse events, and 47 (11%) and 69 (16%), respectively, had treatment-emergent adverse events that led to withdrawal.

INTERPRETATION

Treatment with lacosamide met the predefined non-inferiority criteria when compared with carbamazepine-CR. Therefore, it might be useful as first-line monotherapy for adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

FUNDING

UCB Pharma.

Lacosamide in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy: An observational multicentric open-label study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide (LCM) both as add-on therapy and monotherapy in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) based on an observational, prospective, multicenter study.

METHODS

We enrolled 100 patients (mean age: 43.4±12.53years, 57 females) with nonlesional TLE and TLE with hippocampal sclerosis (HS) that did not respond to the first drug and who were referred to epilepsy centers of the University of Catanzaro, University of Palermo, IRCSS Neuromed of Pozzilli, and Otto-von-Guericke University of Magdeburg. In this open-label, multicenter trial, patients were initiated on oral LCM as add-on therapy to first AED monotherapy or as a later add-on to two concomitant AEDs. Seizure frequency changes and adverse events were recorded for at least six months after LCM was added.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients dropped out because of positive MRI findings other than HS. Patients received LCM at 200-400mg/day. Fifty-eight out of these 86 patients with seizures that were previously drug-resistant had reduced seizure frequency after introduction of LCM. Forty-five out of 86 patients were classified as responders (12 were seizure-free, 33 achieved a reduction >50%). Interestingly, five patients out of 86 achieved seizure freedom for at least one year and progressively switched to monotherapy with LCM, and all five remained seizure-free at follow-up (6-48months).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results may suggest that LCM at doses of 200 to 400mg/day reduces seizure frequency in adults with TLE regardless of the presence of HS, and that it may be considered as a first add-on treatment for patients with pharmacoresistant TLE.

Lacosamide tolerability in adult patients with partial-onset seizures: Impact of planned reduction and mechanism of action of concomitant antiepileptic drugs

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the impact of planned dose reduction and mechanism of action of concomitant AEDs on tolerability in adults with partial-onset seizures undergoing lacosamide (LCM) titration.

METHODS

Data were collected at baseline and 3-6 and 12-24 months post-LCM initiation. Subjects were categorized as having planned reduction of concomitant AEDs or not; AEDs were categorized as traditional sodium channel blockers (TSCB) or non-TSCB (NTSCB). Groups with/without planned reduction were compared on the presence and number of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) using chi-square tests or logistic regression and on time to LCM discontinuation with time-to-event methods controlling for standardized (STD) AED dose, a measure of concomitant AED load. Similar analyses were performed comparing subjects taking TSCB and NTSCB agents and used to identify relationships with ≥50% decreases in seizure frequency.

RESULTS

One hundred six adults (mean age 41.4 ± 13.4; 50% male) underwent LCM titration from June 2009-2011 with complete data. Reduction of concomitant AEDs was planned at the time of LCM initiation in 59 (55.7%) subjects. Fewer subjects with planned reduction had TEAEs (49.2% vs. 68.1%; p=0.05), and these subjects had a lower risk of TEAEs (OR 0.36; p=0.019) after adjusting for STD AED dose. The hazard ratio (95% CI) for LCM discontinuation was 0.46 (0.23, 0.94) in subjects with planned reduction of concomitant AEDs vs. others (p=0.033) and 3.29 (1.01, 10.70) in subjects taking TSCB vs. NTSCB agents (p=0.048). Among all cases, those who ever had TEAEs had significantly higher STD dose at both follow-up visits (p=0.033 and p=0.023, respectively). Seizure outcomes were not significantly different between groups at the last follow-up assessment.

SIGNIFICANCE

Planned reduction of concomitant AEDs during LCM initiation and the use of NTSCB agents only are associated with a reduced risk of TEAEs and LCM discontinuation in adults with partial-onset seizures. This study extends prior observations by considering total AED load in the assessment of tolerability and supports the benefits of early reduction of concomitant AEDs during LCM initiation.

A noninterventional study evaluating the effectiveness and safety of lacosamide added to monotherapy in patients with epilepsy with partial-onset seizures in daily clinical practice: The VITOBA study

Objective

Evidence for the efficacy and safety of adjunctive lacosamide in the treatment of partial‐onset seizures (POS) was gained during placebo‐controlled clinical trials in patients with treatment‐resistant seizures who were taking one to three concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). The VITOBA study (NCT01098162) evaluated the effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive lacosamide added to one baseline AED in real‐world clinical practice.

Methods

We conducted a 6‐month observational study at 112 sites across Germany. Adult patients (≥16 years) with POS received lacosamide adjunctive to only one baseline AED. Seizure frequency reduction at the end of the observation period was compared with a 3‐month retrospective baseline period.

Results

Five hundred seventy‐one patients received lacosamide at least once (Safety Set [SS]); 520 provided evaluable seizure records (Full Analysis Set [FAS]); and 499 took in‐label dosages of lacosamide (up to 400 mg) and were evaluated for effectiveness (modified FAS). Median baseline seizure frequency was 2.0 per 28 days: 47.1% of patients (235/499, mFAS) took a concomitant sodium channel–blocking (SCB) AED; 38.1% (190/499) had only one lifetime AED; and 18.4% (92/499) were aged ≥65 years (mFAS). At the final visit, 72.5% (358/494) of patients showed a ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency from baseline, 63.8% (315/494) showed a ≥75% reduction, and 45.5% (225/494) were seizure‐free. Seizure freedom rates were higher in patients aged ≥65 years (56.7%) compared with patients aged <65 years (43.1%), in patients with ≤5 years epilepsy duration (52.5%) versus >5 years duration (41.0%), and when added to first monotherapy (60.5%) rather than as a later therapy option. Treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 48.5% (277/571) of patients (SS), with a profile similar to that observed in pivotal trials; 466 of patients (81.6%, SS) continued lacosamide therapy after the trial.

Significance

These results suggest that lacosamide use, added to one concomitant AED, was effective at improving seizure control and was well tolerated in patients treated in routine clinical practice.