Lacosamide monotherapy in clinical practice: A retrospective chart review

Perampanel and lacosamide monotherapy in pediatric patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: A prospective study evaluating efficacy, tolerability, and behavior

PURPOSE

Perampanel (PER) and lacosamide (LCM) are the new third-generation anti-seizure medications (ASMs) that were approved for the monotherapy of focal epilepsy in children over four years of age in China, in 2021. Very few studies have analyzed the application of PER monotherapy among pediatric patients aged ≥four years, and no study compared the efficacy and tolerability of PER monotherapy with LCM monotherapy in pediatric patients with focal epilepsy. The present study aimed to investigate the efficacy, tolerability, and effect on behavior and emotion of PER and LCM as monotherapy in pediatric patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy, which is beneficial for clinicians to have more choices to treat pediatric patients with focal epilepsy.

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-center, observational study that involved pediatric patients (disease onset age ≥four years) with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy treated with PER or LCM as primary monotherapy. Outcomes included retention, being responders, and seizure-free rates after 3, 6, and 12 months. Adverse events (AEs) were noticed throughout the follow-up period. Behavioral outcomes were evaluated with Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL/4-16) at baseline and after three and six months.

RESULTS

Using randomization, 60 patients receiving PER (31 females, 29 males, median age: 7.79 [5.34, 10.16] years, median dose: 3.0 [2.0, 4.0] mg/day) and 60 patients receiving LCM (25 females, 35 males, median age: 7.72 [5.91, 10.72] years, median dose: 150.0 [100.0, 200.0] mg/day) were enrolled in the study. At the 12-month follow-up, the retention rates in the PER and LCM groups, both were 90.4%, and the responder rates were 65.4% and 71.2%, while seizure-free rates were 57.7% and 67.3%, respectively. There were no significant differences in the retention, responder and seizure-free rates between the two groups (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in the responder rates between patients with BECTS, abnormal brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or types of seizure in the two groups (P > 0.05). In the PER group, 28.8% (15/52) of patients experienced AEs, of which the most frequently reported were irritability (n = 7; 13.5%), dizziness (n = 5; 9.6%), somnolence (n = 3; 5.8%), ataxia (n = 1; 1.9%), headache (n = 1; 1.9%), and rash (n = 1; 1.9%). In the LCM group, 15.4% (8/52) of the patients had AEs, including headache (n = 4; 7.5%), dizziness (n = 4; 7.5%), nausea (n = 2; 3.8%), somnolence (n = 2; 3.8%), irritability (n = 1; 1.9%), stomach ache (n = 1; 1.9%), and vomiting (n = 1; 1.9%). The incidence of irritability was significantly higher in the PER group than in the LCM group (13.5% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.031), which occurred mainly within eight weeks after drug administration. Patients with irritability were not dangerous to surrounding people by the assessment of parental observation in the life. And the symptoms were relieved spontaneously within a few months. The outcomes of total scores, internalizing scores, and externalizing scores of the CBCL did not show statistically significant differences in the PER and LCM groups between baseline and three and six months. Characteristics of behavior and emotion did not have substantial changes in patients treated with PER and LCM monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study documented similar good effectiveness and good tolerance of PER and LCM as monotherapy in pediatric patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy and showed no behavioral or emotional impact, as assessed by the CBCL. Though the incidence of irritability with PER monotherapy may be higher than that with LCM monotherapy soon after medication initiation, this side effect appears to resolve spontaneously within a few months. At present, this study was the first research about PER and LCM monotherapy in pediatric patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy evaluating efficacy, tolerability, and behavior in China.

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Significance

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

Perampanel monotherapy for the treatment of epilepsy: Clinical trial and real-world evidence

Perampanel, a selective, non-competitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptor antagonist, is a once-daily oral anti-seizure medication (ASM) for focal-onset seizures (FOS) and generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS). In the US, perampanel is approved for the treatment of FOS (adjunctive and monotherapy), with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), in patients aged ≥4 years, and as adjunctive treatment of GTCS in patients aged ≥12 years. The monotherapy approvals in the US were based on the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) policy allowing extrapolation of adjunctive data to the monotherapy setting in the absence of randomized controlled monotherapy trials; since then, perampanel monotherapy has received approvals in approximately 48 countries. As there are key differences in clinical evidence of perampanel as adjunctive therapy vs monotherapy, we review the clinical outcomes of perampanel when administered as primary or secondary monotherapy. Eight publications reporting the efficacy and safety outcomes of perampanel monotherapy in clinical trial and real-world settings were selected during our literature search and are included; these comprise three Eisai-sponsored studies in patients with epilepsy: one prospective, open-label, Phase III clinical trial of patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy (Study 342 [FREEDOM]) and two retrospective, real-world Phase IV studies of patients with epilepsy who received perampanel during routine clinical care (Studies 504 and 506 [PROVE]); and five retrospective, real-world studies in patients with epilepsy who were prescribed perampanel during routine clinical care. Results from these studies demonstrated that seizure freedom may be achieved following treatment with perampanel monotherapy (either primary or secondary), with favorable retention rates and safety profiles. Overall, the clinical evidence supports the use of perampanel monotherapy both in newly diagnosed patients and in those who have been unable to control their seizures with other ASMs.

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.

Lacosamide as first add-on or conversion monotherapy: A retrospective real-life study

PURPOSE

Lacosamide (LCM), the R-enantiomer of 2-acetamido-N-benzyl-3-methoxypropionamide, is a newer approved antiseizure medication characterized by a novel pharmacodynamic and favorable pharmacokinetic profile that was approved as adjunctive treatment for adults with focal onset and focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures in 2008, and recently also for monotherapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of LCM as first add-on or conversion monotherapy in adult subjects with focal epilepsy.

METHODS

We retrospectively included all adult patients who received LCM as first add-on regimen or as substitution monotherapy at least 12 months before starting the chart review, with a historical baseline of 6 months prior to day of the first administration of LCM. The choice of treatment was made independently by the epilepstologists, according to routine clinical practice. Clinical data were obtained at 3, 6, and 12 months after subjects started LCM and then analyzed to assess retention rate, seizure freedom, and adverse events (AE).

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients (58 men) with a mean age of 44 years and a median epilepsy duration of 6.6 years (range 1-53) were included in the study. At 12 months 72 patients retained LCM, 54 (75%) of them were seizure free, 44 (81.5%) in monotherapy and 10 (18.5%) in add-on LCM treatment. Among all subjects, 31 (57.4%) were free from seizure under LCM monotherapy throughout the entire observation period. Thirty one out of 72 (43%) PwE who retained LCM at 12 months, were free from seizures throughout the entire observation period. The maintenance median dosage of LCM was 200 mg/day. Ten (10%) subjects reported mild to moderate AE, most commonly drowsiness and dizziness. No serious AE were documented.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-life study confirms that LCM is an effective and well tolerated treatment option as first add-on or conversion monotherapy for focal seizures.

Response to first antiseizure medication in patients diagnosed with epilepsy

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the interaction among the efficacy, tolerability and overall effectiveness of the first antiseizure medication in patients 16 years or older with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 584 patients who were referred to the Tampere University Hospital between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2005 and were diagnosed with epilepsy. All individuals were retrospectively followed up until 31 December 2006, until reaching at least one year of seizure freedom, or until death if before the cut-off date.

RESULTS

Overall, after thorough validation of the epilepsy diagnosis 459 patients comprised the study cohort; among these patients, 73% of males and 60% of females became seizure-free for at least one year with the first antiseizure medication. The seizure freedom rate for focal epilepsy was 67%. There was no significant difference in focal epilepsy to achieve seizure freedom between oxcarbazepine, carbamazepine or valproic acid. The seizure freedom rate among patients above 60 years of age was 67%. For patients with structural and unknown aetiology, seizure freedom rates were 61.5% and 75.3%, respectively. Additionally, epileptiform activity on EEG in patients with focal epilepsy decreased odds of seizure freedom in adjusted logistic regression models (OR 0.55, p=0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a more positive prediction of seizure freedom compared with previous studies with the onset of epilepsy at 16 years or older with an overall estimation that two-thirds of patients with new-onset epilepsy obtain seizure freedom with the first antiseizure medication.

New Methods Used in Pharmacokinetics and Therapeutic Monitoring of the First and Newer Generations of Antiepileptic Drugs (AEDs)

The review presents data from the last few years on bioanalytical methods used in therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of the 1st-3rd generation and the newest antiepileptic drug (AEDs) cenobamate in patients with various forms of seizures. Chemical classification, structure, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetic data and therapeutic ranges for total and free fractions and interactions were collected. The primary data on bioanalytical methods for AEDs determination included biological matrices, sample preparation, dried blood spot (DBS) analysis, column resolution, detection method, validation parameters, and clinical utility. In conclusion, the most frequently described method used in AED analysis is the LC-based technique (HPLC, UHPLC, USLC) combined with highly sensitive mass detection or fluorescence detection. However, less sensitive UV is also used. Capillary electrophoresis and gas chromatography have been rarely applied. Besides the precipitation of proteins or LLE, an automatic SPE is often a sample preparation method. Derivatization was also indicated to improve sensitivity and automate the analysis. The usefulness of the methods for TDM was also highlighted.

Clinical Management of Diffuse Low-Grade Gliomas

Diffuse low-grade gliomas (LGG) represent a heterogeneous group of primary brain tumors arising from supporting glial cells and usually affecting young adults. Advances in the knowledge of molecular profile of these tumors, including mutations in the isocitrate dehydrogenase genes, or 1p/19q codeletion, and in neuroradiological techniques have contributed to the diagnosis, prognostic stratification, and follow-up of these tumors. Optimal post-operative management of LGG is still controversial, though radiation therapy and chemotherapy remain the optimal treatments after surgical resection in selected patients. In this review, we report the most important and recent research on clinical and molecular features, new neuroradiological techniques, the different therapeutic modalities, and new opportunities for personalized targeted therapy and supportive care.

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.

Clinical outcomes of eslicarbazepine acetate monotherapy for focal-onset seizures: A multicenter audit

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) monotherapy in routine clinical practice for the treatment of focal-onset seizures.

METHODS

Multicenter, retrospective, observational study conducted in patients older than 16 years treated with ESL as first-line monotherapy or converted to ESL monotherapy from polytherapy or other monotherapy. Outcomes included 1-year retention rate, seizure-free rates after 6 and 12 months of monotherapy treatment, and safety/tolerability issues.

RESULTS

A total of 256 patients were included (106 first-line and 150 conversion to monotherapy; 56 patients aged >65 years). Overall, the 1-year retention rate was 79% (72.7% in the ≥65 years subgroup) and seizure-free rates at 6 and 12 months were 59.3% and 55.3% (72.2% and 67.3% in the ≥65 years subgroup), without significant differences when comparing first-line vs conversion-to-ESL monotherapy groups (P = .979). However, the conversion group was heterogeneous and included 43 (29.1%) patients that were seizure free the year prior ESL introduction. A substantially higher proportion of patients remained seizure free for the entire follow-up among those who initiated ESL due to tolerability problems compared with those treated due to inadequate seizure control (71.4% vs 37.3%). Overall, 62 of 256 (24.2%) patients reported AEs (39.3% in >65 years subgroup) and led to discontinuation in 20/256 (7.8%) patients (12.5% in >65 years subgroup). Commonly reported AEs were somnolence (6.6%), dizziness (6.3%), and headache (4.3%). Hyponatremia was recorded in five patients, the majority (4/5) of whom were older than 65 years.

CONCLUSIONS

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

MONOZEB: Long-term observational study of eslicarbazepine acetate monotherapy

AIM

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) when used as monotherapy for 1 year or more in routine clinical use in patients with focal seizures in epilepsy clinics in Spain.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, observational, noninterventional study. Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years, had focal seizures, and started on ESL ≥1 year before database closure. Primary endpoint was the following: proportion seizure-free for ≥6 months at 1 and 2 years. Secondary endpoints included retention on ESL monotherapy at 1 and 2 years, seizure frequency change, seizure worsening, and side effects. Other analyses included seizure freedom from baseline to 1 and 2 years and outcomes in special populations.

RESULTS

Four hundred thirty-five patients were included (127 on first-line monotherapy and 308 converting to ESL monotherapy): median daily dose was 800 mg at all time points; 63.2% were seizure-free at 1 year, 65.1% at 2 years, and 50.3% for the entire follow-up. Mean duration of ESL monotherapy was 66.7 months; retention was 88.0% at 1 year and 81.9% at 2 years. Mean reduction in seizure frequency was 75.5% at last visit. Over the entire follow-up, seizure worsening was seen in 22 patients (5.1%), side effects in 28.0%, considered severe in 1.8%, and leading to discontinuation in 5.7%. Dizziness, hyponatremia (sodium <135 mEq/l), and somnolence were the most frequent side effects. Outcomes in special populations (patients aged ≥65 years and those with psychiatric history or learning difficulty) were consistent with the overall population.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with focal seizures taking ESL monotherapy had excellent retention, high seizure-free rates, and good tolerability up to 2 years.

Antiepileptic drug therapy in the elderly: a clinical pharmacological review

Seizure disorder is the third most common neurological disorder in the elderly after stroke and dementia. With the increasing geriatric population, the situation of clinicians seeing more and more elderly epilepsy patients is very likely. Not only is the diagnosis of epilepsy tedious in the elderly, its management raises many challenging issues for the treating physicians. Altered physiology, age-related decline in organ function, and plasma protein binding and altered pharmacodynamics make the elderly patients with seizure disorder a difficult group to treat. This is further complicated by the presence of comorbidities and polypharmacy which increase the chances of drug interactions. The adverse effects that might be tolerated well in younger populations may be disastrous for the aged. Although the newer antiepileptic drugs are found to have a favorable safety profile, there is relative scarcity of randomized-controlled trials involving older and newer antiepileptics in the geriatric population. This review tries to compile the available literature on management of epilepsy in the elderly population including evidence of safety and efficacy of newer and older antiepileptics with special reference to the 'geriatric giants'. It also deals with the interactions between antiepileptic medications and other commonly prescribed drugs in the elderly such as anti-hypertensives and antiischemic agents. The recommended guidelines of various international bodies are also analyzed from the perspective of elderly with seizure disorder.

Effectiveness and Safety/Tolerability of Eslicarbazepine Acetate in Epilepsy Patients Aged ≥ 60 Versus < 60 Years: A Subanalysis from the Euro-Esli Study

Introduction

Clinical practice studies help guide antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy in patient groups routinely excluded from clinical trials, such as the elderly. The Euro-Esli study investigated the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) when used in everyday clinical practice in Europe. A subanalysis of data from elderly patients (≥ 60 years) included in the Euro-Esli study was conducted to assess these aspects of ESL use in this population.

Methods

Euro-Esli was a pooled analysis of 14 European clinical practice studies. Effectiveness parameters included responder (≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction) and seizure freedom rates after 3, 6 and 12 months of treatment and at last visit. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout the follow-up by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and ESL discontinuation due to AEs, respectively. Data were compared for patients aged ≥ 60 versus those aged < 60 years at study entry.

Results

Euro-Esli included 2058 patients (mean age 44.0 years). Age at study entry was known for 2057 patients, of whom 358 (17.4%) and 1699 (82.6%) were aged ≥ 60 and < 60 years, respectively. Mean maximum ESL dose was   882.0 and 1008.2 mg/day in patients aged ≥ 60 and < 60 years, respectively  (p < 0.001). At all timepoints, responder and seizure freedom rates were significantly higher in patients aged ≥ 60 versus < 60 years; for example, at 12 months, responder rates were 83.9 and 73.7%, respectively (p = 0.002), and seizure freedom rates were 58.5 and 37.1%, respectively (p < 0.001). The incidence of AEs was significantly higher in patients aged ≥ 60 versus < 60 years (41.4 vs. 32.5%; p = 0.001), but the rate of discontinuation due to AEs was comparable between age groups (16.2 vs 13.1%; p = not significant). The safety/tolerability of ESL in patients aged ≥ 60 years was consistent with its known    profile.

Conclusion

Eslicarbazepine acetate was efficacious and generally well tolerated when used to treat elderly patients with focal epilepsy in clinical practice, with no new or unexpected safety signals emerging in this setting.

Funding

Eisai Ltd.

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

OBJECTIVES

Epilepsy management in elderly patients is often complex because of several concomitant comorbidities that may limit the use of some antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Levetiracetam (LEV) is a second-generation AED widely used in elderly patients with epilepsy while lacosamide (LCM), which has been recently approved in European Union (EU) as monotherapy for the treatment of focal onset seizures, is affected by a scarcity of data in such frail population. This study is aimed at assessing the efficacy and the tolerability of LCM as monotherapy in elderly patients affected by focal onset epilepsy compared with those receiving LEV.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of patients aged ≥65 years suffering from focal onset seizures, with or without secondary generalization on LCM monotherapy or LEV monotherapy, was performed. Data regarding demographic characteristics, seizure type and etiology, LCM and LEV daily dose, number of lifetime AEDs, seizure frequency at baseline and at 12 months of follow-up, and seizure freedom rates were reported.

RESULTS

In this observational retrospective study, 22 patients on LCM (10 males, 12 females, mean age: 76.23 ± 7.5) and 24 patients on LEV (10 males, 14 females, mean age: 73.58 ± 6.39) were enrolled. Mean LCM daily dose was 204.51 ± 88.51 mg and mean LEV daily dose was 1281.25 ± 378.15 mg. All patients had comorbidities on chronic treatment. At 12 months of follow-up, mean monthly seizure frequency reduced from 4.23 ± 8.53 to 0.33 ± 0.9 (p < .001) in LCM group and from 2.29 ± 6.11 to 0.2 ± 0.81 (p < .001) in LEV group. Furthermore, 16/22 (72.7%) LCM patients were seizure-free at 12 months of follow-up while seizure freedom was achieved by 17/24 (70.8%) patients in LEV group.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Epilepsy management in elderly patients is often challenging. In this retrospective real-life study, the efficacy and the tolerability of LCM as monotherapy was favorable even at low doses in older patients and comparable with LEV with a high rate of long-term seizure freedom. Considering the frequent comorbidities and the risk of drug-drug interactions, LCM monotherapy may be a valuable option in elderly patients with focal onset epilepsy because of its favorable pharmacokinetic profile.

Eslicarbazepine acetate as monotherapy in clinical practice: Outcomes from Euro-Esli

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) monotherapy in clinical practice in Europe.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Euro-Esli was a pooled analysis of 14 European clinical practice studies. Responder rate (≥50% seizure frequency reduction) and seizure freedom rate (seizure freedom at least since prior visit) were assessed after 3, 6 and 12 months of ESL treatment and at last visit. Adverse events (AEs) and AEs leading to ESL discontinuation were assessed throughout follow-up. A subanalysis was conducted to assess outcomes for patients treated initially with ESL monotherapy and for patients treated at the last visit with ESL monotherapy.

RESULTS

ESL was used as monotherapy in 88/2045 (4.3%) patients initially and in 229/1340 (17.1%) patients at the last visit. At 12 months, responder and seizure freedom rates were 94.1% and 88.2%, respectively, in patients treated initially with ESL monotherapy, and 93.2% and 77.4%, respectively, in patients treated at the last visit with ESL monotherapy. Corresponding values for patients treated initially with ESL adjunctive therapy were 74.8% and 39.0%, respectively; and for patients treated at the last visit with ESL adjunctive therapy, corresponding values were 70.4% and 25.9%, respectively. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable in patients treated with ESL as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy. The most commonly reported AEs (≥5% of patients in any group) were dizziness, somnolence, instability/ataxia, and fatigue.

CONCLUSIONS

These clinical practice data support the use of ESL as monotherapy, as well as adjunctive therapy, for focal-onset seizures, complementing evidence from clinical trials.

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.