Long-term efficacy and safety of lacosamide and levetiracetam monotherapy in elderly patients with focal epilepsy: A retrospective study

A real-world comparison among third-generation antiseizure medications: Results from the COMPARE study

OBJECTIVE

There are few comparative data on the third-generation antiseizure medications (ASMs). We aimed to assess and compare the effectiveness of brivaracetam (BRV), eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), lacosamide (LCM), and perampanel (PER) in people with epilepsy (PWE). Efficacy and tolerability were compared as secondary objectives.

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective study collected data from 22 Italian neurology/epilepsy centers. All adult PWE who started add-on treatment with one of the studied ASMs between January 2018 and October 2021 were included. Retention rate was established as effectiveness measure and described using Kaplan-Meier curves and the best fitting survival model. The responder status and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) were used to evaluate efficacy and safety, respectively. The odds of AEs and drug efficacy were estimated by two multilevel logistic models.

RESULTS

A total of 960 patients (52.92% females, median age = 43 years) met the inclusion criteria. They mainly suffered from structural epilepsy (52.29%) with monthly (46.2%) focal seizures (69.58%). Compared with LCM, all the studied ASMs had a higher dropout risk, statistically significant in the BRV levetiracetam (LEV)-naïve (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17-3.29) and PER groups (HR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.06-2.55). Women were at higher risk of discontinuing ESL (HR = 5.33, 95% CI = 1.71-16.61), as well as PER-treated patients with unknown epilepsy etiology versus those with structural etiology (HR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.05-2.88). BRV with prior LEV therapy showed lower odds of efficacy (odds ratio [OR] = .08, 95% CI = .01-.48) versus LCM, whereas a higher efficacy was observed in women treated with BRV and LEV-naïve (OR = 10.32, 95% CI = 1.55-68.78) versus men. PER (OR = 6.93, 95% CI = 3.32-14.44) and BRV in LEV-naïve patients (OR = 6.80, 95% CI = 2.64-17.52) had a higher chance of AEs than LCM.

SIGNIFICANCE

Comparative evidence from real-world studies may help clinicians to tailor treatments according to patients' demographic and clinical characteristics.

Equipotency of lacosamide to levetiracetam in new onset focal epilepsy: A randomized controlled trial

Objectives

Levetiracetam (LEV) is a well-established broad spectrum antiseizure medication (ASM) effective in focal, generalized, and myoclonic seizures whereas lacosamide (LCM) is a comparatively newer ASM currently approved only as an add-on agent in focal seizures. The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and the tolerability of oral LCM as monotherapy in adult people with epilepsy (PWE) with new onset focal onset epilepsy compared with those receiving LEV.

Materials and Methods

In this open-label single-center non-inferiority trial, PWE aged between 16 and 65 years suffering from new onset focal seizures, with or without secondary generalization were put on LCM monotherapy or LEV monotherapy. Data regarding demographic characteristics, seizure type and etiology, LCM and LEV daily dose, seizure frequency at baseline and at 6 months of follow-up, and seizure freedom rates were recorded.

Results

Thirty-five PWE on LCM (24 males), their mean age: 38.20 ± 16.62 years and 35 PWE on LEV (25 males, mean age: 38.91 ± 17.13 years) were enrolled. The most common type of seizure observed was focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizure >70% followed by focal impaired awareness seizure and focal awareness seizure. Structural epilepsy was found in 21 among LCM group and 22 of LEV group. In the LCM group, the seizure frequency decreased from 3.33 ± 1.88 to 0.85 ± 1.09 (P = 0.001) at 6 months and from 3.61 ± 3.12 to 0.94 ± 1.24 (P = 0.001) in LEV group, intergroup difference (P = 0.74). At 6-month follow-up period, 78.9% in LCM arm and 87.9% in the LEV arm had experienced a 50% of reduction in seizure frequency while seizure freedom was attained in 43.3% of PWE in both the arms (P = 1). The most common treatment emergent adverse effects in the LCM group were fatiguability, dyspepsia, headache, and dizziness, while in the LEV group; somnolence and behavioral abnormality.

Conclusion

Treatment with LCM met the non-inferiority criteria when compared with LEV. Therefore, it might be useful as first-line monotherapy for adults with newly diagnosed 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].

Long-term effectiveness and safety of lacosamide as adjunctive therapy in children and adolescents with refractory epilepsy: a real-world study

PURPOSE

The effectiveness and tolerability of lacosamide (LCM) among Chinese children and adolescents with refractory epilepsy has not yet been established. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of LCM among children and adolescents with refractory epilepsy in Xinjiang, Northwest China.

METHODS

Effectiveness was assessed by measuring changes in seizure frequency at 3, 6 and 12 months compared with baseline. Patients that achieved ≥ 50% reduction in the frequency of all seizures per month, relative to baseline, were considered to be responders.

RESULTS

105 children and adolescents with refractory epilepsy were enrolled in the study. The responder rates were 47.6%, 39.2%, and 31.9%, respectively at 3, 6, and 12 months. Seizure freedom rates were 32.4%, 28.9%, and 23.6% at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. The retention rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 92.4%, 78.1%, and 69.5%, respectively. The maintenance dose of LCM within the responder group (8.2 ± 4.5 mg·kg^- 1·d^- 1) was significantly higher compared to the non-responder group (7.3 ± 2.3 mg·kg^- 1·d^- 1) (p < 0.05). At first follow-up, 44 patients (41.9%) reported experiencing at least one treatment-emergent adverse events.

CONCLUSION

This real-world study of children and adolescents validated that LCM was both an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for the treatment of refractory epilepsy.

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.

Levetiracetam ameliorates epileptogenesis by modulating the adenosinergic pathway in a kindling model of epilepsy in mice

Background

Levetiracetam (LEV) has been found to have an antihyperalgesic effect via acting on the adenosine system. However, the effects of LEV on the modulation of the adenosine system in the brain have not been elucidated in the prevention of seizures and epilepsy. The present study aimed to explore the possible LEV mechanisms of action in the adenosine signaling systems in an animal model of epilepsy.

Methodology

A docking study was initially performed to determine the possible interaction of LEV with adenosine A1 receptors (A1Rs) and equilibrative nucleoside transporters-1 (ENT1). The experimental study was divided into an acute seizure test (32 mice distributed into 4 groups) and a chronic kindling model study (40 mice distributed into 5 groups), followed by gene expression analysis and immunohistochemistry. The kindling model lasted 26 days and took 13 subconvulsive doses of pentylenetetrazole (PTZ) to completely kindle the mice in the PTZ control group. Gene expression changes in the A1Rs, potassium inwardly-rectifying channel 3.2 (Kir3.2), and ENT1 in the brain tissue samples of the mice following treatment with LEV were analyzed using reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction, and immunohistochemistry was performed for the A1R protein expression.

Results

Docking studies predicted a significant interaction of LEV with A1Rs and ENT1 proteins. Results from the acute testing revealed that caffeine (100 mg/kg) and 8-cyclopentyl-1,3-dipropylxanthine (25 mg/kg) significantly reversed the antiseizure effects of LEV by reversing the percent protection and shortening the onset of the first myoclonic jerk (FMJ) and generalized clonic seizures (GCSs). In the PTZ-induced kindling, LEV demonstrated an increased gene expression of A1Rs and Kir3.2 in the brain. LEV also significantly reduced the gene expression of ENT1. Furthermore, the immunohistochemical analysis showed that LEV increased the protein expression of A1Rs in the brain.

Conclusion

Based on these results, it can be concluded that LEV modulates epileptogenesis by acting on the adenosine pathway in the central nervous system.

Twelve-Month Efficacy of Lacosamide Monotherapy at Maximal Dose and Tolerability for Epilepsy Treatment in Pediatric Patients: Real-World Clinical Experience

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of lacosamide (LCM) monotherapy in Chinese pediatric patients with epilepsy have not been established. Therefore, this real-world retrospective study aimed to assess the efficacy of 12 months after achievement the maximal dose and tolerability of LCM as monotherapy for epilepsy treatment in pediatric patients.

METHODS

Pediatric patients were administered LCM monotherapy in two ways: primary or conversion monotherapy. Seizure frequency was recorded as an average per month for the preceding three months at baseline and then at each follow-up period for three, six, and 12 months.

RESULTS

Primary monotherapy with LCM was administered to 37 (33.0%) pediatric patients, whereas conversion to monotherapy was achieved in 75 (67.0%) pediatric patients. The responder rates of pediatric patients receiving primary monotherapy with LCM at three, six, and 12 months were 75.7% (28 of 37), 67.6% (23 of 34), and 58.6% (17 of 29), respectively. The responder rates of pediatric patients receiving conversion to monotherapy with LCM at three, six, and 12 months were 80.0% (60 of 75), 74.3% (55 of 74), and 68.1% (49 of 72), respectively. The incidence of adverse reactions with conversion to LCM monotherapy and primary monotherapy was 32.0% (24 of 75) and 40.5% (15 of 37), respectively.

CONCLUSION

LCM is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option as monotherapy for the treatment of epilepsy.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Lacosamide in Chinese Pediatric Patients with Epilepsy: Efficacy and Factors Influencing the Plasma Concentration

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The impact of individual patient variables on drug metabolism is particularly important for antiseizure medication, and lacosamide has not been studied in Chinese pediatric patients with epilepsy. This study evaluated the effects of dose, age, sex, medication time, seizure type, and concomitant enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications (EIASMs) on the plasma concentration of lacosamide.

METHODS

A total of 500 pediatric patients from two hospitals in China were enrolled in this study. Lacosamide plasma concentration was processed using an ultra-performance liquid chromatography assay. Efficacy was evaluated based on the four-grade therapeutic effect criteria developed by the first National Epilepsy Academic Conference of the Chinese Medical Association.

RESULTS

The responder rate to lacosamide therapy was 72.2% (361/500). There was a weaker relationship between the lacosamide daily dose and lacosamide plasma concentration (r = 0.238). Lacosamide plasma concentrations of patients ranged from 1.5 to 19.7 µg/mL, with a mean of 6.9 ± 3.2 µg/mL. The study results showed a significant contribution of age, body mass index, epilepsy duration, medication time, and EIASMs to the lacosamide plasma concentration (p < 0.05). Patients taking concomitant EIASMs with lacosamide had a significantly lower mean lacosamide plasma concentration (5.9 ± 2.6 µg/mL) than patients taking concomitant non-EIASMs (7.5 ± 3.5 µg/mL, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

To ensure the clinical efficacy and safety of lacosamide therapy in pediatric patients, it is necessary to monitor the plasma concentration.

Trends in antiseizure medication prescription patterns among all adults, women, and older adults with epilepsy: A German longitudinal analysis from 2008 to 2020

INTRODUCTION

The prescription patterns of antiseizure medication (ASM) are subject to new scientific evidence and sociodemographic and practical aspects. This study analyzed trends in ASM prescription patterns among all adults with epilepsy, with special consideration for women of childbearing potential (WOCBP) and older adult (≥65 years old) patients.

METHODS

Data from four questionnaire-based cohort studies, conducted in 2008, 2013, 2016, and 2020, were analyzed for ASM prescription frequencies and common mono- and dual therapy regimens. Statistical comparisons were performed with the Chi-square test and one-way analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Overall, the individual prescription patterns among 1,642 adult patients with epilepsy were analyzed. A significant increase in the prescription frequency of third-generation ASMs, from 59.3% to 84.2% (p = 0.004), was accompanied by a decrease in the frequency of first- and second-generation ASMs (5.4% to 2.1% and 34.9% to 12.6%, respectively). This trend was accompanied by a significant decrease in the use of enzyme-inducing ASMs, from 23.9% to 4.6% (p = 0.004). Among frequently prescribed ASMs, prescriptions of carbamazepine (18.6% to 3.1%, p = 0.004) and valproate (15.4% to 8.7%, p = 0.004) decreased, whereas prescriptions of levetiracetam (18.0% up to 32.4%, p = 0.004) increased significantly. The prescription frequency of lamotrigine remained largely constant at approximately 20% (p = 0.859). Among WOCBP, the prescription frequencies of carbamazepine (11.4% to 2.0%, p = 0.004) and valproate (16.1% to 6.1%, p = 0.004) decreased significantly. Levetiracetam monotherapy prescriptions increased significantly (6.6% to 30.4%, p = 0.004) for WOCBP, whereas lamotrigine prescriptions remained consistent (37.7% to 44.9%, p = 0.911). Among older adult patients, a significant decrease in carbamazepine prescriptions (30.1% to 7.8%, p = 0.025) was the only relevant change in ASM regimens between 2008 and 2020. In patients with genetic generalized epilepsies, levetiracetam was frequently used as an off-label monotherapy (25.0% to 35.3%).

CONCLUSION

These results show a clear trend toward the use of newer and less interacting third-generation ASMs, with lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and lacosamide representing the current ASMs of choice, displacing valproate and carbamazepine over the last decade. In WOCBP, prescription patterns shifted to minimize teratogenic effects, whereas, among older adults, the decrease in carbamazepine use may reflect the avoidance of hyponatremia risks and attempts to reduce the interaction potential with other drugs and ASMs. Levetiracetam is frequently used off-label as a monotherapy in patients with genetic generalized epilepsy.

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.

Initiating antiepilepsy treatment: An update of expert consensus in Spain

Following publication in 2014 of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) official report changing the definition of epilepsy, a number of questions remain unresolved in regard to deciding when to start treatment and to the choice of a particular antiseizure medication (ASM). This study uses a Delphi method to update consensus among a panel of experts on the initiation of epilepsy treatment in order to provide insight regarding those questions. The study was undertaken in four phases. Firstly, a multi-center steering committee met to review relevant bibliography and to draft a questionnaire. Secondly, a panel of neurologists specialized in epilepsy was selected and convened. Thirdly, an online survey was carried out in two rounds. Fourthly, the final results were discussed at a face-to-face meeting of the steering committee to draw conclusions. The final questionnaire focused on three independent sections: the decision to commence ASM in different clinical situations, the choice of initial monotherapy depending on the type of epilepsy and the patient's age/sex (including childbearing potential), and the choice of initial monotherapy depending on comorbidity. In these two latter sections, fourteen ASMs approved for monotherapy use by the EMA and available in Spain were considered. Regarding the decision as to when to commence treatment, the results show agreement exists to initiate treatment following a first generalized tonic-clonic seizure or a focal seizure if the electroencephalography (EEG) reveals epileptiform activity, if the MRI reveals a lesion, or when it occurs in elderly patients. With respect to the choice of initial monotherapy depending on the type of epilepsy and the patient's age/sex profile, it is agreed to avoid valproic acid (VPA) in women with childbearing potential, with levetiracetam (LEV) and lamotrigine (LTG) being the preferable options in generalized epilepsy. In focal epilepsy, the options are broader, particularly in men, and include the most recent ASMs approved for monotherapy. In the elderly, LEV, lacosamide (LCM), eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) and LTG are considered the most suitable drugs for initiating treatment. With regard to comorbidities, the recommendation is to avoid enzyme inducing ASMs, with LEV, the most recent ASMs approved for monotherapy and LTG being the preferred options. In conclusion, as the ILAE definition states, there are different situations that lead to treatment initiation after a first seizure. When choosing the first ASM, the type of epilepsy, childbearing potential and drug-drug interaction are key factors.

New anti-seizure medication for elderly epilepsy patients - a critical narrative review

Introduction: The number of elderly patients with epilepsy is growing in resource rich countries due to demographic changes and increased longevity. Management in these patients is challenging as underlying etiology, co-morbidities, polypharmacy, age-related pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes need to be considered.Areas covered: Lacosamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, brivaracetam, and perampanel have been approved in the USA and Europe for monotherapy and/or adjunctive treatment of seizures in the last few years. The authors review the pharmacological properties and safety profile of these drugs and provide recommendations for their use in in the elderly.Expert opinion: There are only limited data available on more recent antiseizure medications (ASMs). Drugs with a low risk of interaction (lacosamide, brivaracetam) are preferred choices. Once daily formulations (perampanel and eslicarbazepine acetate) have the advantage of increased compliance. Intravenous formulations (brivaracetam and lacosamide) are useful in emergency situations and in patients who have difficulties to swallow. Dose adjustments are necessary for all ASMs used in the elderly with slow titration and lower target doses than in the regulatory trials. The adverse event profile does not significantly differ from that found in the general adult population.