Effectiveness of lacosamide in children and young adults previously treated with other sodium channel blockers

Effectiveness and safety of Lacosamide in pediatric patients with epilepsy under four years: Results from a prospective cohort study in China

BACKGROUND

Lacosamide (LCM) has shown promising efficacy and safety outcomes in clinical trials. However, the evidence is limited among pediatric patients especially under four years in real-world. The study investigated the treatment outcomes and safety of LCM in patients under four years based on the data of the epilepsy registry of Children in China.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted among patients under 4 years who newly received LCM as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy. The treatment outcomes were measured by retention rate of LCM, 50 % response rates and seizure-free rates during follow-up. The retention rate of LCM was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier survival model. Adverse events were reported as a percentage of all participants.

RESULTS

Of 109 participants (mean follow-up: 18.6 months), 59 received LCM as monotherapy and 50 as adjunctive therapy. Sixty patients had focal epilepsy, 44 had generalized epilepsy and 5 had combined generalized and focal epilepsy. 70 % of patients in the monotherapy group and 41 % in the adjunctive therapy group remained on LCM treatment without additional treatments for at least one year. In patients with monotherapy, 50 % response rate and seizure-free rate were 75 % and 56 % at 12 months, respectively. In adjunctive therapy group, these rates were 51 % and 36 %, respectively. Lower baseline seizure frequency in both treatment groups (monotherapy: p < 0.001; adjunctive therapy: p = 0.02) and younger age groups within the monotherapy group (P = 0.04) correlated with a higher LCM retention rate. Adverse events were reported by 15 patients (13.8 %), with somnolence being the most common (7 of 15 patients).

CONCLUSION

With a comprehensive information and high-quality of data, the study demonstrates the effective treatment outcome and safety of LCM. The study adds reliable evidence to exiting real-word evidence of LCM in the specific age group of patients with epilepsy to fill the evidence gap.

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

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