Single-dose oral lacosamide in refractory simple partial status epilepticus: case report and review

Focal status epilepticus: a review of pharmacological treatment

INTRODUCTION

Status epilepticus (SE) is a neurological emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality. One prognostic factor is the type of SE. The purpose of this review is to analyse the most recent recommendations of different scientific societies and expert groups on the treatment of SE, and the latest studies, to assess the literature on the management of focal SE.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for studies published between 1 August 2008 and 1 August 2018 on the pharmacological treatment of focal SE and its different types in adults.

RESULTS

We identified 29 publications among reviews, treatment guidelines, meta-analyses, clinical trials, and case series on the treatment of SE. Only 3 of them accounted for whether SE was focal or generalised; 4 focused exclusively on focal SE, and 7 differentiated between convulsive and non-convulsive SE and also record the presence of focal seizures. Treatment recommendations for focal SE do not differ from those of generalised SE in stages I and II: initially intravenous lorazepam or diazepam, if the intravenous route is available, and otherwise intramuscular midazolam, followed by intravenous phenytoin, valproate, levetiracetam, or lacosamide if seizures persist. Use of anaesthetic drugs should be delayed for as long as possible in patients with refractory focal SE.

CONCLUSIONS

The available scientific evidence is insufficient to claim that pharmacological treatment of focal SE should be different from treatment for generalised SE. More studies with a greater number of patients are needed.

Use of Newer Anticonvulsants for the Treatment of Status Epilepticus

Status epilepticus (SE) has a high mortality rate and is one of the most common neurologic emergencies. Fast progression of this neurologic emergency and lack of response to traditional antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in most cases has challenged clinicians to use new agents. This article evaluates the efficacy and safety of AEDs released to the market after 2000 for SE, refractory status epilepticus (RSE), and super-refractory status epilepticus (SRSE). The PubMed database was searched for clinical trials published between January 2000 and July 2018 using the search terms status epilepticus, refractory status epilepticus, super refractory status epilepticus, brivaracetam, clobazam, cannabidiol, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, perampanel, rufinamide, stiripentol, and zonisamide. Trials that evaluated these agents in adults with SE, RSE, and SRSE were included. Brivaracetam use was identified in two retrospective reviews with success rates of 27% and 57%. One unsuccessful case report of cannabidiol use in SE was found. Four clobazam studies were identified in SE and RSE with success rates ranging from 25-100%. No evidence for the use of eslicarbazepine and zonisamide was found. Using the search terms for lacosamide identified 38 articles: 1 systematic review, 5 prospective studies, 15 retrospective reviews, and 17 case reports. Success rates and dosing varied, but studies that included focal or partial types of SE showed higher success rates. Five articles were identified regarding perampanel use in this setting. Three were retrospective reviews with success rates ranging from 17-60%, and two were case reports. Only one case report regarding the use of rufinamide was found; rufinamide titrated up to 4.4 mg/day allowed discontinuation of barbiturate and clobazam. One case report and two case series of stiripentol were found with reported efficacy between 60% and 100% in SRSE. Evidence is currently insufficient to support the use of these agents in this setting.

Safety of intravenous lacosamide in critically ill children

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Lacosamide in status epilepticus: Systematic review of current evidence

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

SIGNIFICANCE

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

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

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