Long-term adjunctive lacosamide treatment in patients with partial-onset seizures

Long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability, including behavior and executive functioning, during adjunctive lacosamide treatment in pediatric patients with uncontrolled epilepsy

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability, including behavior and executive functioning, during adjunctive lacosamide (LCM) treatment in pediatric patients (≥1 month to <18 years of age) with focal-onset or generalized seizures enrolled in 2 open-label, long-term follow-up trials.

METHODS

Two open-label extension trials (SP848: NCT00938912; EP0034: NCT01964560) were conducted in pediatric patients who had participated in previous trials of adjunctive LCM (SP0847/NCT00938431; SP0966/NCT01969851; EP0060/NCT02710890; SP0967/NCT02477839; SP0969/NCT01921205); SP848 also directly enrolled eligible pediatric patients who had not previously participated in a clinical trial of LCM. Outcomes included retention, efficacy, and safety/tolerability. Patient improvement was assessed with Clinician's and Caregiver's Global Impression of Change scale. Behavior and emotional function was assessed with Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and executive functioning was assessed with Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function® (BRIEF).

RESULTS

The pooled dataset from both trials included 905 patients (851 in the focal-onset seizure population and 47 in the generalized seizure population). In the overall population, Kaplan-Meier-estimated 1-year retention was 80 %. From baseline to the end of the treatment period, patients in the focal-onset seizure population had a median percent reduction in focal-onset seizure frequency per 28 days of 60.4 %, 55.4 % of patients were 50 % responders, and 40.8 % of patients were 75 % responders. In patients with ≥12 months of LCM treatment, ≥12 month seizure freedom during the LCM treatment period was achieved by 29.9 % of patients in the focal-onset seizure population (median duration of first ≥12-month seizure-free interval: 641 days) and 24.4 % of patients in the generalized seizure population (median duration of first ≥12-month seizure-free interval: 665 days). Improvement during LCM treatment was reported in >75 % of patients by both physicians and caregivers. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 749 (82.8 %) patients, most commonly pyrexia (18.9 %), upper respiratory tract infection (18.6 %), nasopharyngitis (16.2 %), vomiting (15.7 %), and somnolence (11.8 %). The most common drug-related TEAEs were somnolence (8.5 %), dizziness (7.6 %), and vomiting (5.4 %). Behavioral and emotional function was generally stable in patients 1.5-5 years of age and slightly improved in patients ≥6 years of age, and executive functioning was stable in patients <5 years of age and generally slightly improved in patients 5-18 years of age.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of a large patient pool from 2 open-label trials, long-term adjunctive LCM was efficacious and generally well tolerated in children with epilepsy and focal-onset or generalized seizures. Behavior and executive functioning were generally stable without observable worsening during long-term adjunctive LCM treatment.

The efficacy and safety of third-generation antiseizure medications and non-invasive brain stimulation to treat refractory epilepsy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis study

Background

The new antiseizure medications (ASMs) and non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) are controversial in controlling seizures. So, this network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of five third-generation ASMs and two NIBS therapies for the treatment of refractory epilepsy.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases. Brivaracetam (BRV), cenobamate (CNB), eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), lacosamide (LCM), perampanel (PER), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) were selected as additional treatments for refractory epilepsy in randomized controlled studies and other cohort studies. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on studies that evaluated the efficacy or safety of medication and non-invasive brain stimulation and included patients with seizures were uncontrolled by one or more concomitant ASMs were identified. A random effects model was used to incorporate possible heterogeneity. The primary outcome was the change in seizure frequency from baseline, and secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients with ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency, and the rate of treatment-emergent adverse events.

Results

Forty-five studies were analyzed. The five ASMs and two NIBS decreased seizure frequency from baseline compared with placebo. The 50% responder rates of the five antiseizure drugs were significantly higher than that of placebo, and the ASMs were associated with fewer adverse events than placebo (p < 0.05). The surface under the cumulative ranking analysis revealed that ESL was most effective in decreasing the seizure frequency from baseline, whereas CNB provided the best 50% responder rate. BRV was the best tolerated. No significant publication bias was identified for each outcome index.

Conclusion

The five third-generation ASMs were more effective in controlling seizures than placebo, among which CNB, ESL, and LCM were most effective, and BRV exhibited better safety. Although rTMS and tDCS did not reduce seizure frequency as effectively as the five drugs, their safety was confirmed.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ (CRD42023441097).

Real-world analysis of retention on cenobamate in patients with epilepsy in the United States

BACKGROUND

This retrospective, observational study used US claims data to assess retention rates on cenobamate compared with four branded antiseizure medications (ASMs) in patients with epilepsy.

METHODS

Adults (≥18 years) with prevalent epilepsy (ICD-10 code G40.xx) and ≥ 1 prescription for cenobamate or any of the newer branded ASMs (brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, or perampanel) between May 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021 were identified from the HealthVerity Marketplace database. At least 360 days of continuous enrollment was required before and after the index date (Day 1 of initiating cenobamate or branded ASM). Patients were followed until cessation of cenobamate or branded ASM or the end of data collection using Kaplan-Meier methods. Retention was compared between cenobamate and the branded ASMs (both as a group and individually) using Chi-square tests.

RESULTS

In total, 4109 patients were included (195 cenobamate; 3914 branded ASMs). A higher proportion of patients in the cenobamate group compared with the branded ASMs group had concurrent focal and generalized epilepsy (65.6% vs 40.0%) and were on ≥ 3 concomitant ASMs (48.2% vs 12.8%) at the index date. Median time to discontinuation (i.e., the time that half the patients discontinued) was not quite reached after 12 months in the cenobamate group (50.3% of patients remained on cenobamate) and was 7.7 months in the branded ASMs group. Retention was significantly higher with cenobamate vs the branded ASMs group (p = 0.04545) and vs the individual ASMs lacosamide (p = 0.03044) and perampanel (p = 0.01558). Twelve-month retention rates (95% confidence intervals) were 50.3% (43.1%-57.0%) for cenobamate, 40.5% (38.9%-42.0%) for branded ASMs overall, 42.3% (38.6%-46.0%) for brivaracetam, 44.1% (39.2%-49.0%) for eslicarbazepine, 39.9% (38.0%-41.8%) for lacosamide, and 36.8% (31.9%-41.8%) for perampanel.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world analysis, retention was significantly higher with cenobamate vs a pooled group of four branded ASMs despite a greater frequency of patients in the cenobamate group having characteristics of more difficult-to-treat 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.

Cost-effectiveness of cenobamate for focal seizures in people with drug-resistant epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to estimate the cost-effectiveness of add-on cenobamate in the UK when used to treat drug-resistant focal seizures in adults who are not adequately controlled with at least two prior antiseizure medications, including at least one used adjunctively.

METHODS

We estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for cenobamate compared to brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, and perampanel in the UK National Health Service over a lifetime time horizon. We used a Markov cohort structure to determine response to treatment, using pooled data from three long-term studies of cenobamate. A network meta-analysis informed the likelihood of response to therapy with brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, and perampanel relative to cenobamate. Once individuals discontinued treatment, they transitioned to subsequent treatment health states, including other antiseizure medicines, surgery, and vagus nerve stimulation. Costs included treatment, administration, routine monitoring, event management, and adverse events. Published evidence and expert opinion informed the likelihood of response to subsequent treatments, associated adverse events, and costs. Utility data were based on Short-Form six-dimension form utility. Discounting was applied at 3.5% per annum as per National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. Uncertainty was explored through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

In the base case, cenobamate led to cost savings of £51 967 (compared to brivaracetam), £21 080 (compared to eslicarbazepine), £33 619 (compared to lacosamide), and £28 296 (compared to perampanel) and increased QALYs of 1.047 (compared to brivaracetam), 0.598 (compared to eslicarbazepine), 0.776 (compared to lacosamide), and 0.703 (compared to perampanel) per individual over a lifetime time horizon. Cenobamate also dominated the four drugs across most sensitivity analyses. Differences were due to reduced seizure frequency with cenobamate relative to comparators.

SIGNIFICANCE

Cenobamate improved QALYs and was less costly than brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, and perampanel. Therefore, cenobamate may be considered as a cost-effective adjunctive antiseizure medication for people with drug-resistant focal seizures.

Long-term Efficacy and Safety From an Open-Label Extension of Adjunctive Cenobamate in Patients With Uncontrolled Focal Seizures

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate long-term efficacy (percent seizure frequency reduction and responder rates), safety, and tolerability of adjunctive cenobamate (CNB) in an open-label extension (OLE) of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

METHODS

Patients (aged 18-70 years) with uncontrolled focal seizures despite treatment with 1-3 antiseizure medications who completed the 18-week double-blind study (n = 360) could enter the OLE, where they underwent a 2-week blinded conversion to CNB (target dose, 300 mg/d; min/max, 50/400 mg/d).

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty-five patients were included in the OLE safety population (265 originally randomized to CNB, 90 originally randomized to placebo), and 354 were included in the OLE modified intent-to-treat population. As of July 2019, 58.9% of patients (209/355) were continuing CNB treatment and 141 had discontinued, including 16.6% (59/355) because of lack of efficacy, 8.7% (31/355) because of withdrawal by patient, and 7.6% (27/355) because of adverse events. The median (range) duration of OLE exposure was 53.9 (1.1-68.7) months. Retention rates at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months were 83%, 71%, 65%, and 62%, respectively. Median percent seizure frequency reduction over baseline increased with each 6-month OLE interval, up to 76.1% at months 43-48. Among observed patients, 16.4% (36/220) achieved 100% and 39.1% (86/220) achieved ≥90% seizure reduction during >36-48 months. Among the initial OLE modified intent-to-treat population, 10.2% of patients (36/354) achieved 100% and 24.3% (86/354) achieved ≥90% seizure reduction during >36-48 months. Similar to the double-blind study, adverse events (AEs) included dizziness, somnolence, fatigue, and headache. Serious AEs occurred in 20.3% of patients (72/355).

DISCUSSION

Long-term efficacy, including 100% and ≥90% seizure reduction, was sustained during 48 months of CNB treatment, with 71% retention at 24 months. No new safety issues were identified. These results confirm the findings of the double-blind study and support the potential long-term clinical benefit of CNB.

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE

This study provides Class IV evidence that oral CNB 50-400 mg/d is effective as an adjunctive treatment for the long-term management of patients with uncontrolled focal seizures previously treated with 1-3 ASMs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01866111 (clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT01866111).

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.

Long-term efficacy and safety of perampanel as a first add-on therapy in patients with focal epilepsy: Three-year extension study

PURPOSE

We investigated the long-term efficacy and safety of perampanel as a first add-on therapy in patients with focal epilepsy.

METHODS

This retrospective study represented the 3-year extension phase of a multicenter, open-label, phase 4, prospective study of perampanel as a first add-on therapy in patients with focal epilepsy. Seizure and safety outcomes were assessed annually from the start of the extension study, and the retention rate was calculated from the start of perampanel exposure in the original study.

RESULTS

The 50% responder and seizure freedom rates were 84.8% and 58.7%, respectively, during the third year and 71.7% and 32.6%, respectively, during the entire 3-year period of the extension study. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year retention rates were 62.5%, 53.1%, and 52.1%, respectively. Efficacies were higher in patients that were aged >55 years, male, and receiving ≤4 mg of perampanel. Perampanel was generally well tolerated; 47.3% of patients experienced at least one adverse event during the 3 years of extension (46 adverse events (AEs) in 35 patients). The most common AEs were dizziness (33.8%), somnolence (5.4%), anger (4.1%), and irritability (4.1%). AEs were resolved with perampanel dose reduction or discontinuation in 10 (13.5%) and 12 (16.2%) patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Long-term treatment with perampanel as a first add-on therapy did not raise new safety signals in patients with focal epilepsy. Especially at low perampanel doses (≤4 mg/day), sustained improvement in seizure control was achieved, which could potentially avoid adverse drug reactions.

Long-term individual retention with cenobamate in adults with focal seizures: Pooled data from the clinical development program

Objective

We determined retention on open‐label cenobamate therapy in the clinical development program to assess the long‐term efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive cenobamate in individuals with uncontrolled focal seizures.

Methods

Data from two randomized, controlled cenobamate studies and one open‐label safety and pharmacokinetic study were pooled. Based on the percentage of participants remaining on treatment, retention rates were estimated using Kaplan‐Meier survival analyses. We performed two additional analyses to assess factors contributing to retention, stratifying a robust data set (through 2 years) by cenobamate modal dose and frequently used concomitant anti‐seizure medications. Cenobamate discontinuations and treatment‐emergent adverse events were summarized.

Results

Data from 1844 participants were pooled: 149 from a single‐dose randomized trial, 355 from a multi‐dose randomized trial, and 1340 from an open‐label safety and pharmacokinetic study. Most participants from randomized trials continued in open‐label extensions, and pooled data represent >95% of participants exposed to cenobamate. Baseline characteristics and disease and treatment histories were similar across studies. Median duration of cenobamate exposure was 34 months, with a median modal dose of 200 mg/day. Kaplan‐Meier estimates of cumulative cenobamate retention rates were 80% at 1 year and 72% at 2 years. Once participants reached the maintenance phase, retention rates were consistently high in participants receiving ≥100 mg/day cenobamate, and concomitant anti‐seizure medications did not affect long‐term retention. By 2 years, 535 (29%) had actually discontinued cenobamate; the most common reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (37.6%), withdrawal of consent (21.1%), and other (16.8%).

Significance

Treatment retention rates provide a proxy measure for long‐term efficacy, safety, tolerability, and adherence. The consistently high retention rates we found suggest that cenobamate may be an effective and well‐tolerated new treatment option for people with drug‐resistant focal seizures.

Long-term safety of adjunctive cenobamate in patients with uncontrolled focal seizures: Open-label extension of a randomized clinical study

Objective

This study was undertaken to examine long‐term (up to 7.8 years) retention rate, safety, and tolerability of the antiseizure medication (ASM) cenobamate as adjunctive treatment in the open‐label extension (OLE) of study YKP3089C013 (C013; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01397968).

Methods

Patients who completed the 12‐week, multicenter, multinational, double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled C013 study, which examined adjunctive cenobamate treatment of adults with uncontrolled focal seizures, were eligible to enroll in the OLE. During the OLE, dose adjustments of cenobamate and concomitant ASMs were allowed. Safety assessments included frequency of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and serious TEAEs, TEAE severity, and TEAEs leading to discontinuation. Probability of patient continuation in the OLE was examined using a Kaplan–Meier analysis.

Results

One hundred forty‐nine patients entered the OLE (median duration of cenobamate treatment = 6.25 years). As of the data cutoff, 57% of patients (85/149) remained in the OLE (median treatment duration = 6.8 years, range = 6.4–7.8 years). The median modal daily cenobamate dose was 200 mg (range = 50–400 mg). The probability of treatment continuation at 1–6 years of cenobamate treatment was 73%, 67%, 63%, 61%, 60%, and 59%, respectively. Among patients who continued at 1 year (n = 107), the probability of continuing at Years 2–5 was 92%, 87%, 83%, and 82%. The most common discontinuation reasons were patient withdrawal (19.5%, 29/149), adverse event (10.1%, 15/149), and lack of efficacy (5.4%, 8/149). TEAEs leading to discontinuation in 1% or more of patients were fatigue (1.3%, 2/149), ataxia (1.3%, 2/149), and memory impairment or amnesia (1.3%, 2/149). Dizziness (32.9%, 49/149), headache (26.8%, 40/149), and somnolence (21.5%, 32/149) were the most frequently reported TEAEs and were primarily mild or moderate in severity.

Significance

Long‐term retention in the C013 OLE study demonstrated sustained safety and tolerability of adjunctive cenobamate treatment up to 7.8 years in adults with treatment‐resistant focal seizures taking one to three ASMs.

Safety and efficacy of adjunctive lacosamide in Chinese and Japanese adults with epilepsy and focal seizures: A long-term, open-label extension of a randomized, controlled trial

This Phase III, long-term, open-label extension (OLE) trial (EP0009; NCT01832038) was conducted to evaluate the long-term safety, tolerability, and efficacy of adjunctive lacosamide (100-400 mg/day) in Chinese and Japanese people with epilepsy (PWE) (16-70 years) who had completed a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of adjunctive lacosamide (EP0008; NCT01710657). PWE entered the OLE trial on 200 mg/day lacosamide and up to 3 concomitant antiseizure medications. Dose adjustments were permitted to optimize tolerability and seizure reduction. Safety variables were treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and discontinuations due to TEAEs. Efficacy variables were percent change in focal seizure frequency per 28 days from Baseline of the double-blind trial, ≥50 % and ≥75 % responder rates, seizure-freedom, and proportion of PWE on lacosamide monotherapy. Overall, 473 PWE (74.0 % Chinese and 26.0 % Japanese) were enrolled; 238 (50.3 %) PWE completed the trial and 235 (49.7 %) discontinued, most commonly due to lack of efficacy (81 [17.1 %]), adverse events (55 [11.6 %]), and consent withdrawn (49 [10.4 %]). During the trial, PWE received lacosamide for a median of 1016.0 days (∼3 years), with a total exposure of 1454.8 person-years; 321 (67.9 %) PWE received lacosamide for >24 months, and 246 (52.0 %) for >36 months. The median modal dose of lacosamide was 300 mg/day. Overall, 410/473 (86.7 %) PWE reported TEAEs, 244 (51.6 %) had a TEAE that was considered drug-related, and 49 (10.4 %) discontinued due to a TEAE. The most common TEAEs (≥20 % of PWE) were nasopharyngitis, dizziness, and upper respiratory tract infection. The median reduction in focal seizure frequency per 28 days from Baseline was 57.1 %, and the ≥50 % and ≥75 % responder rates were 57.1 % (269/471) and 29.7 % (140/471), respectively. Among PWE who completed 12, 24, and 36 months of treatment, the 12-, 24-, and 36-month seizure-freedom rates were 3.5 % (13/375), 3.4 % (11/321), and 2.0 % (5/247), respectively. Among PWE exposed to lacosamide for ≥6 months and ≥12 months, the proportions of PWE that maintained continuous monotherapy for ≥6 months and ≥12 months were 5.0 % (21/421) and 5.0 % (19/378), respectively. Overall, lacosamide was well-tolerated as long-term adjunctive therapy in Chinese and Japanese PWE and uncontrolled focal seizures, with improvements in seizure reduction maintained over 36 months of treatment.

Lacosamide add-on therapy for focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the Cochrane review published in 2015. Around half of people with epilepsy will not achieve seizure freedom on their first antiepileptic drug; many will require add-on therapy. Around a third of people fail to achieve complete seizure freedom despite multiple antiepileptic drugs. Lacosamide has been licenced as an add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide as an add-on therapy for children and adults with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases (22 August 2019): the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), including the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 20 August 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), with no language restrictions. We contacted UCB Pharma (sponsors of lacosamide).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of add-on lacosamide in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology, assessing the following outcomes: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; seizure freedom; treatment withdrawal; adverse events; quality of life; and cognitive changes. The primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We estimated summary risk ratios (RR) for each outcome presented with 99% confidence intervals (CI), except for 50% or greater seizure reduction, seizure freedom and treatment withdrawal which were presented with 95% CIs. We performed subgroup analyses according to lacosamide dose and sensitivity analyses according to population age, whereby data from children were excluded from the meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials (2199 participants). The risk of bias for all studies was low to unclear. All studies were placebo-controlled and assessed doses from 200 mg to 600 mg per day. One study evaluated lacosamide in children; all other studies were in adults. Trial duration ranged from 24 to 26 weeks. All studies used adequate methods of randomisation and were double-blind. Overall, the certainty of the evidence for the outcomes was judged as moderate to high, with the exception of seizure freedom which was low. The RR for a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 1.79 (95% CI 1.55 to 2.08; 5 studies; 2199 participants; high-certainty evidence). The RR for seizure freedom for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 2.27 (95% CI 1.35 to 3.83; 5 studies; 2199 participants; low-certainty evidence). The RR for treatment withdrawal for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 1.57 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.98; 5 studies; 2199 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The estimated effect size for most outcomes did not change considerably following sensitivity analysis. For seizure freedom, however, the RR nearly doubled upon the exclusion of data from children (RR 4.04, 95% CI 1.52 to 10.73). Adverse events associated with lacosamide included: abnormal co-ordination (RR 6.12, 99% CI 1.35 to 27.77), blurred vision (RR 4.65, 99% CI 1.24 to 17.37), diplopia (RR 5.59, 99% CI 2.27 to 13.79), dizziness (RR 2.96, 99% CI 2.09 to 4.20), nausea (RR 2.35, 99% CI 1.37 to 4.02), somnolence (RR 2.04, 99% CI 1.22 to 3.41), vomiting (RR 2.94, 99% CI 1.54 to 5.64), and number of participants experiencing one or more adverse events (RR 1.12, 99% CI 1.01 to 1.24). Adverse events that were not significant were: vertigo (RR 3.71, 99% CI 0.86 to 15.95), rash (RR 0.58, 99% CI 0.17 to 1.89), nasopharyngitis (RR 1.41, 99% CI 0.87 to 2.28), headache (RR 1.34, 99% CI 0.90 to 1.98), fatigue (RR 2.11, 99% CI 0.92 to 4.85), nystagmus (RR 1.47, 99% CI 0.61 to 3.52), and upper respiratory tract infection (RR 0.70, 99% CI 0.43 to 1.15).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Lacosamide is effective and well-tolerated in the short term when used as add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Lacosamide increases the number of people with 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency and may increase seizure freedom, compared to placebo. Higher doses of lacosamide may be associated with higher rates of adverse events and treatment withdrawal. Additional evidence is required assessing the use of lacosamide in children and on longer-term efficacy and tolerability.

Long-term safety, efficacy, and quality of life during adjunctive brivaracetam treatment in patients with uncontrolled epilepsy: An open-label follow-up trial

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this long-term follow-up (LTFU) trial was to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV). The secondary objective was to evaluate the maintenance of efficacy of BRV (including quality of life) over time.

METHODS

This open-label, multicenter, flexible-dose trial (N01379 [NCT01339559]) was conducted in adults (≥16 years) with focal or generalized-onset seizures, who had participated in a placebo (PBO)-controlled trial of adjunctive BRV (N01258: NCT01405508 or N01358: NCT01261325).

RESULTS

Seven hundred and sixty-six patients received BRV in this LTFU trial (753 had focal seizures and 13 had generalized-onset seizures). Kaplan-Meier-estimated retention was 71.9% at 12 months, and 53.7% at 36 months. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 643 (83.9%) patients, most commonly headache (104 [13.6%] patients) and dizziness (100 [13.1%] patients). Two hundred and fifty-seven (33.6%) patients had drug-related TEAEs, most commonly somnolence (49 [6.4%] patients) and dizziness (41 [5.4%] patients). Permanent discontinuation of BRV due to TEAEs occurred in 91 (11.9%) patients. Patients with focal seizures had a median percentage reduction in focal seizure frequency of 52.0% and 51.7% were 50% responders (sustained over time); 26.0% were seizurefree for 6 months, and 17.9% were seizurefree for 12 months. 42.4% of patients at 12 months and 46.8% at 24 months had clinically meaningful improvements in Patient Weighted Quality of Life in Epilepsy Questionnaire 31 total score.

CONCLUSIONS

In this select group of patients who entered the LTFU trial, BRV was generally safe and well tolerated. Results indicate the long-term efficacy of BRV in patients with focal seizures.

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).

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.

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.

Long-term safety and efficacy of lacosamide and controlled-release carbamazepine monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

A large-scale, double-blind trial (SP0993; NCT01243177) demonstrated that lacosamide was noninferior to controlled-release carbamazepine (carbamazepine-CR) in terms of efficacy, and well tolerated as first-line monotherapy in patients (≥16 years of age) with newly diagnosed epilepsy. We report primary safety outcomes from the double-blind extension of the noninferiority trial (SP0994; NCT01465997) and post hoc analyses of pooled long-term safety and efficacy data from both trials.

METHODS

Patients were randomized 1:1 to lacosamide or carbamazepine-CR. Doses were escalated (lacosamide: 200/400/600 mg/d; carbamazepine-CR: 400/800/1200 mg/d) based on seizure control. Eligible patients continued randomized treatment in the extension. Primary outcomes of the extension were treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious TEAEs, and discontinuations due to TEAEs. Post hoc analyses of data from combined trials included 12- and 24-month seizure freedom and TEAEs by number of comorbid conditions.

RESULTS

A total of 886 patients were treated in the initial trial and 548 in the extension; 211 of 279 patients (75.6%) on lacosamide and 180/269 (66.9%) on carbamazepine-CR completed the extension. In the extension, 181 patients (64.9%) on lacosamide and 182 (67.7%) on carbamazepine-CR reported TEAEs; in both groups, nasopharyngitis, headache, and dizziness were most common. Serious TEAEs were reported by 32 patients (11.5%) on lacosamide and 22 (8.2%) on carbamazepine-CR; 12 (4.3%) and 21 (7.8%) discontinued due to TEAEs. In the combined trials (median exposure: lacosamide 630 days; carbamazepine-CR 589 days), Kaplan-Meier estimated proportions of patients with 12- and 24-month seizure freedom from first dose were 50.8% (95% confidence interval 46.2%-55.4%) and 47.0% (42.2%-51.7%) on lacosamide, and 54.9% (50.3%-59.6%) and 50.9% (46.0%-55.7%) on carbamazepine-CR. Incidences of drug-related TEAEs and discontinuations due to TEAEs increased by number of comorbid conditions and were lower in patients on lacosamide.

SIGNIFICANCE

Long-term (median ~2 years) lacosamide monotherapy was efficacious and generally well tolerated in adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Seizure freedom rates were similar with lacosamide and carbamazepine-CR.

Lacosamide in patients with intellectual disability and refractory epilepsy

The objective of this study was to evaluate the tolerability and efficacy of lacosamide (LCM) in residential patients at our epilepsy centre. We assessed retrospectively 80 patients (mean age 36.2 years, range 18-63 years; 29 female) with intellectual disability (ID) and drug-resistant epilepsy using an industry-independent, non-interventional study design based on standardised seizure records. Evaluation, including calculation of retention rate, was carried out for the intervals 3-6, 9-12 and 21-24 months after LCM initiation. The Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI) was used to allow assessment of qualitative changes in seizure severity and clinical status. CGI improved for 61% of the patients. The responder rate was 48%; ten patients (13%) became seizure free. The response was not related to the degree of ID. The retention rates after 12 and 24 months were 71% and 65%, and were significantly lower in patients taking other sodium-channel blockers (SCBs; 76% vs. 55%). The occurrence of adverse events (AEs) was related to the administration of concomitant SCBs (48% with SCBs vs. 26% without). Sedation (15%), ataxia (13%), vertigo (11%), and nausea (9%) were the commonest AEs. While 60% of our patients had concomitant psychiatric diagnosis, we found no relevant effect of this on challenging behaviour. Adjunctive LCM may provide an antiepileptic treatment option for patients with ID with or without additional psychiatric diagnosis. The occurrence of AEs and the LCM retention rate were affected by concomitant SCB use but not by psychiatric comorbidity.

Lacosamide monotherapy in clinical practice: A retrospective chart review

OBJECTIVE

To assess effectiveness and tolerability of first-line and conversion to lacosamide monotherapy for focal seizures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective, non-interventional chart review of lacosamide monotherapy patients aged ≥16 years in Europe. Outcomes included retention rate at observational point (OP) 3 (12 ± 3 months), seizure freedom rates at OP2 (6 ± 3 months) and OP3 and adverse drug reactions (ADRs).

RESULTS

A total of 439 patients were included (98 first-line and 341 conversion to monotherapy; 128 aged ≥65 years [25 first-line and 103 conversion to monotherapy]). First-line and conversion to monotherapy retention rates were 60.2% (59/98; 95% confidence interval [CI] 49.8%-70.0%) and 62.5% (213/341; 57.1%-67.6%), respectively. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 12-month retention rates were 81.2% and 91.4% for first-line and conversion to monotherapy, respectively. First-line and conversion to monotherapy retention rates in patients aged ≥65 years were 60.0% (38.7%-78.9%) and 68.9% (59.1%-77.7%), respectively. At OP2, 66.3% of first-line and 63.0% of conversion to monotherapy patients were seizure free. At OP3, 60.2% of first-line and 52.5% of conversion to monotherapy patients were seizure free. In the ≥65 years subgroup, seizure freedom rates at OP2 were 72.0% and 68.0% for first-line and converted to monotherapy, respectively, and at OP3, 68.0% and 56.3%, respectively. Overall, 52 of 439 (11.8%) patients reported ADRs (16.4% in ≥65 years subgroup), most commonly dizziness (5.0%), headache (2.1%) and somnolence (1.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Lacosamide was effective and well tolerated as first-line or conversion to monotherapy in a clinical setting in adult and elderly patients with focal seizures.

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.

Long-term efficacy of add-on lacosamide treatment in children and adolescents with refractory epilepsies: A single-center observational study

OBJECTIVE

To assess long-term efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide (LCM) as adjunctive treatment through a retrospective study in children and adolescents with refractory epilepsies.

METHODS

All patients consecutively treated with LCM as add-on for refractory focal and generalized epilepsy and followed at the Neuroscience Center of Excellence of the Meyer Children's Hospital of Florence between January 2011 and September 2015 were included in the study. Responder rate, relapse-free survival, and retention rate were calculated. Tolerability was assessed by reporting adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 88 individuals (41 female) aged 4 months to 18 years (median 10.5 years; mean ± SD 10.6 ± 4.8 years) received add-on LCM treatment for refractory epilepsy. Thirty-four patients (38.6%) were responders with a median time to relapse of 48 months. Nine (26.4%) of the 34 responders were seizure-free. For all 88 patients, the probability of remaining on LCM without additional therapy was 74.4% at 6 months, 47.7% at 12 months, 27.9% at 24 months, 18.0% at 48 months, and 8.2% at 72 months of follow-up. No statistically significant differences in relapse and retention time were observed with regard to epilepsy and seizure types, duration and course of epilepsy, number and type of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs; sodium channel blockers vs others) used in add-on. The most frequent adverse events were dermatological (4/11) and behavioral (3/11).

SIGNIFICANCE

This study documents a real-world progressive and significant loss of LCM efficacy over time in a pediatric population. Further prospective studies on larger populations are required to confirm the remarkable loss of LCM efficacy over time.

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.

Comparing Safety and Efficacy of "Third-Generation" Antiepileptic Drugs: Long-Term Extension and Post-marketing Treatment

Four "third-generation" antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were approved for adjunctive treatment of refractory focal onset seizures during the past 10 years. Long-term efficacy and safety of the drugs were demonstrated in large extension studies and in reports of subgroups of patients not studied in pivotal trials. Reviewing extension study and post-marketing outcome series for the four newer AEDs-lacosamide, perampanel, eslicarbazepine acetate and brivaracetam-can guide clinicians in treating and monitoring patients. AED extension studies evaluate treatment retention, drug tolerability, and drug safety during individualized treatment with flexible dosing and thus provide information not available in rigid pivotal trials. Patient retention in the studies ranged from 75 to 80% at 1 year and from 36 to 68% at 2-year treatment intervals. Safety findings were generally similar to those of pivotal trials, with no major safety risks identified and with several specific adverse drug effects, such as hyponatremia, reported. The third-generation AEDs, some through new mechanisms and others with improved tolerability compared to related AEDs, provide new options in efficacy and tolerability.

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

PURPOSE

We describe the effectiveness of lacosamide as adjunctive therapy in patients with epilepsy and an intellectual disability. This information is relevant, as few data exist pertaining to this population with a high prevalence of (intractable) epilepsy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study in three specialised institutions. Inclusion criteria were (1) focal onset or symptomatic generalized (2) therapy-resistant epilepsy, (3) intellectual disability and (4) residence in a care-facility for people with intellectual disabilities (PWID). The primary outcome variables were the retention rates of lacosamide, estimated through Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Secondary outcomes were reported seizure control, side effects and clinical factors influencing discontinuation.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-two patients were included. The median retention time of lacosamide in our cohort was four years. The estimated one-, two- and three-year retention rates of lacosamide were 64%, 57% and 56% respectively. Severity of intellectual disability and seizure type did not influence whether lacosamide was continued. In 48.5% of patients, a reduction of seizure activity was reported. Side effects were at least part of the reason for discontinuing treatment in 26.5% of all patients. Common side effects were tiredness/somnolence (in 30.3%), aggression/agitation (24.2%), and instable gait (15.2%). Five deaths during follow-up were considered unlikely to be related to the use of lacosamide. One patient died unexpectedly within two months of treatment onset, probably this was a case of SUDEP.

CONCLUSION

These retention rates of lacosamide in PWID are similar to rates of previously registered anti-epileptic drugs in PWID. Behavioural side effects were noted in a high proportion compared to the general literature on lacosamide. Other side effects were in line with this literature. Lacosamide seems effective and safe for PWID and refractory epilepsy.

Lacosamide and sodium channel-blocking antiepileptic drug cross-titration against levetiracetam background therapy

OBJECTIVE

To assess prospectively the effectiveness of lacosamide (LCM) added to levetiracetam (LEV) after down-titration of a concomitant sodium channel blocker (SCB) among patients with focal epilepsy not adequately controlled on LEV and SCB.

METHODS

In this open-label trial, LCM was initiated at 100 mg/day and up-titrated to 200-600 mg/day over 9 weeks; SCB down-titration started when LCM dose reached 200 mg/day. Patients remained on stable LCM/LEV doses for 12 weeks' maintenance (21-week treatment period). The primary outcome was retention rate on LCM.

RESULTS

Due to recruitment challenges, fewer than the planned 300 patients participated in the trial, resulting in the trial being underpowered. Overall, 120 patients (mean age 39.7 years) started and 93 completed the trial. The most frequently used SCBs were lamotrigine (39.2%), carbamazepine (30.8%) and oxcarbazepine (27.5%). Eighty-four patients adhered to protocol and discontinued their SCB after cross-titration, but there was insufficient evidence for 36 patients. Retention rate was 73.3% (88/120) for all patients and 83.3% (70/84) for those with evidence of SCB discontinuation. Seizure freedom for patients completing maintenance was 14.0% (13/93). Discontinuation due to adverse events (6.7%) and lack of efficacy (3.3%) occurred primarily during cross-titration. Most frequently reported adverse events during treatment were dizziness (23.3%), headache (15.0%) and fatigue (8.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with uncontrolled seizures on LEV/SCB, the LCM/LEV combination appeared to be effective and well tolerated. A cross-titration schedule-flexible LCM up-titration, concomitant SCB down-titration and stable background LEV-could present a feasible and practical approach to initiating LCM while minimizing pharmacodynamic interactions with a SCB.

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.

[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.

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.

Long-term exposure and safety of lacosamide monotherapy for the treatment of partial-onset (focal) seizures: Results from a multicenter, open-label trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess long-term use and safety of lacosamide (LCM) ≤800 mg/day monotherapy in patients with partial-onset seizures (POS) enrolled previously in a historical-controlled, conversion-to-monotherapy study (SP902; NCT00520741).

METHODS

Patients completing or exiting SP902 with LCM as monotherapy or as adjunctive therapy were eligible to enter this 2-year open-label extension (OLE) trial (SP904; NCT00530855) at a starting dose ±100 mg/day of their final SP902 dose. Investigators could adjust the LCM dose to 100-800 mg/day and add up to two antiepileptic drugs to optimize tolerability and seizure reduction.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-two patients received LCM: 210 patients (65.2%) completed and 112 (34.8%) discontinued, most commonly owing to withdrawal of consent (9.3%). Two hundred fifty-eight patients (80.1%) had ≥1 year of and 216 (67.1%) had ≥2 years of LCM exposure, of whom 179/258 (69.4%) achieved LCM monotherapy lasting for any 12-month period, and 126/216 (58.3%) patients exposed for ≥24 months achieved LCM monotherapy for any 24-month period. Total exposure = 525.5 patient-years. The median modal dose was 500 mg/day. Two hundred ninety-two patients (90.7%) achieved LCM monotherapy at some point during the study. Sixty-five of 87 patients who exited and 193/235 who completed SP902 were exposed for ≥12 months, and 43.1% and 78.2%, respectively, achieved LCM monotherapy for ≥12 months. Median LCM monotherapy duration was 587.0 days (2-791 days); 91.0% of patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events, of which the most common were dizziness (27.3%), headache (17.1%), and nausea (14.3%). Compared with the SP902 study baseline, 74.2% of patients had a ≥50% seizure reduction and 5.6% were seizure-free at 24 months.

SIGNIFICANCE

The majority of patients were receiving LCM monotherapy at 0, 12, and 24 months in this OLE. Lacosamide monotherapy (median dose of 500 mg/day) had a safety profile similar to that of adjunctive therapy studies. These results support the use of lacosamide as long-term monotherapy treatment for adults with POS.