Conversion to lacosamide monotherapy in the treatment of focal epilepsy: results from a historical-controlled, multicenter, double-blind study

Long-term safety and efficacy of adjunctive lacosamide in the treatment of generalized onset tonic-clonic seizures: An open-label extension trial

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to assess long-term safety, tolerability, and efficacy of lacosamide (LCM) as adjunctive therapy for generalized onset tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS) in patients aged ≥4 years with idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE).

METHODS

EP0012 (NCT02408549) was a phase 3, multicenter, open-label extension (OLE) trial. Patients were enrolled from SP0982 (NCT02408523). Trial duration was ≥2 years (adults) and ≤5 years (children). The trial consisted of a treatment period, ≤4-week taper period, and 30-day safety follow-up. Safety (primary) variables were incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), discontinuations due to TEAEs, incidence of onset of absence or myoclonic seizures, and increase in days with absence or myoclonic seizures per 28 days. Efficacy (secondary) variable was percent change in GTCS frequency per 28 days. Kaplan-Meier estimated retention rates and analyses by number of lifetime antiseizure medications (ASMs) were performed post hoc.

RESULTS

Overall, 239 patients (mean age = 27.9 years, 56.1% female, 18.4% children) were enrolled and received ≥1 dose of LCM in this OLE (median treatment duration = 3.2 years); 157 (65.7%) completed the trial, and 82 (34.3%) discontinued. The most common reason for discontinuation (≥10%) was withdrawn consent (30 [12.6%]). Kaplan-Meier estimated retention rate was 87%, 72%, and 60% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Overall, 222 (92.9%) patients reported TEAEs; 19 (7.9%) discontinued due to TEAEs. Few patients had an increase in number of days with absence or myoclonic seizures, or incidence of new absence or myoclonic seizures. Median percent change in GTCS frequency per 28 days from the combined baseline was -88.6% (range = -100.0 to 465.4, n = 238). Post hoc analyses demonstrated small numerical differences between patients with 1, 2, and ≥3 lifetime ASMs.

SIGNIFICANCE

The results support the use of long-term adjunctive LCM for GTCS in patients with IGE. Long-term adjunctive LCM was efficacious and well tolerated independent of the number of ASMs used before LCM initiation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02408549.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Underrepresented and Underserved Populations in Neurological Research

Underserved and underrepresented populations have historically been excluded from neurological research. This lack of representation has implications for translation of research findings into clinical practice given the impact of social determinants of health on neurological disease risk, progression, and outcomes. Lack of inclusion in research is driven by individual-, investigator-, and study-level barriers as well as larger systemic injustices (e.g., structural racism, discriminatory practices). Although strategies to increase inclusion of underserved and underrepresented populations have been put forth, numerous questions remain about the most effective methodology. In this article, we highlight inclusivity patterns and gaps among the most common neurological conditions and propose best practices informed by our own experiences in engagement of local community organizations and collaboration efforts to increase underserved and underrepresented population participation in neurological research.

Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling of Lacosamide in Patients With Hepatic and Renal Impairment and Pediatric Populations to Support Pediatric Dosing Optimization

PURPOSE

Lacosamide (LCM) is a new-generation anti-seizure medication that is efficacious in patients with focal seizures with or without secondary generalization. Until now, the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of LCM are still lacking in Chinese epilepsy patients, particularly for pediatric populations and patients with renal or hepatic impairment.

METHODS

This study was conducted to develop a physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model to characterize the pharmacokinetics of LCM in Chinese populations and predict the pharmacokinetics of LCM in Chinese pediatric populations and patients with renal or hepatic impairment. Using data from clinical investigations, the developed PBPK model was validated by comparing predicted and observed blood concentration data.

FINDINGS

Doses should be reduced to approximately 82%, 75%, 63%, and 76% of the Chinese healthy adult dose in patients with mild, moderate, and severe renal impairment and end-stage renal disease; and approximately 89%, 72%, and 36% of the Chinese healthy adult dose in patients with Child Pugh-A, B, and C hepatic impairment. For pediatric populations, intravenous doses should be adjusted to 1.75 mg/kg for newborns, 2.5 mg/kg for toddlers, 2.2 mg/kg mg for preschool and school age, and 2 mg/kg mg for adolescents to achieve an equivalent plasma exposure of 2 mg/kg LCM in adults. The oral doses should be adjusted to 20 mg for toddlers, 32 mg for preschool, 45 mg for school age, and 95 mg for adolescents to achieve an approximately equivalent plasma exposure of 100 mg LCM in adults.

IMPLICATIONS

The PBPK model of LCM can be utilized to optimize dosage regimens for special populations.

Effectiveness and safety of Lacosamide therapy for children with focal epilepsy: a real world study

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness and safety of the new antiepileptic drug, lacosamide (LCM) with Levetiracetam, for the treatment of focal epilepsy in children. Methods: This study was a cohort study. Children with focal epilepsy who received LCM or Levetiracetam treatment in West China Second Hospital of Sichuan University were recruited and followed up for 12 months. Changes in the frequency of epilepsy, 50% and 75% responder rates, and seizure freedom rates from baseline to the maintenance period and adherence score were assessed. In addition, adverse events (AEs) were recorded. Results: 92 patients completed the study, and were divided into two groups: LCM (n = 46) and Levetiracetam (n = 46). Participants were aged from 2 to 16.3 years, with a mean epilepsy duration of 2.57 years. The average maintenance dose of LCM was 5.03 ± 1.91 mg/kg/d after the titration period. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the mean seizure frequency during subsequent visits at 1, 3,6, 9, 12 months. There was significant difference between the two groups in terms of the 50% responder rate at 6 months. No serious AEs were reported in both groups. The vast majority of patients had good adherence (adherence score = 4) in the LCM group. Conclusion: LCM is effective as adjunctive therapy in children with epilepsy and has good safety, tolerability and adherence. Large sample size studies with long-term follow-up are needed in the future to comprehensively evaluate the use of LCM in children. Clinical Trial Registration: [https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=41041], identifier [ChiCTR1900024507].

Efficacy and tolerability of immediate switch from sodium channel blockers to Lacosamide

Lacosamide (LCM) is a new-generation anti-seizure medication approved for monotherapy and add-on therapy for focal-onset epilepsy. It has novel pharmacodynamics and favorable pharmacokinetic qualities with good clinical response. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of LCM when used in the immediate switch from sodium channel blockers in patients with focal-onset and generalized-onset epilepsies. This retrospective, multicenter observational study was conducted with adult patients who received LCM as mono- or polytherapy through immediate switch with 6 to 52 months follow-up. The clinical data obtained during the follow-up period were analyzed to assess retention rate, seizure freedom, more than 50% seizure reduction, and adverse effects. A total of 32 patients (eight females, 24 males) with a median age of 49.75 (range, 23-86) years, median age at epilepsy onset of 32.58 (range, 0.5-85) years, and median epilepsy duration of 17.17 (range, 1-46) years were included in this study. Seizure frequency was between 1 and 90 in the past 6 months. Seven (21.9%) of the patients had structural brain lesions and 27 (84.4%) of the patients had EEG abnormalities. The adverse effects leading to switching were hyponatremia, rash, elevated liver enzymes, pain, and erectile dysfunction. At 14.34 (range, 6-52) months follow-up, 30 (93.75%) patients in total retained LCM, 20 (66.7%) of them were seizure-free, and 13 were on LCM monotherapy. Responder rate was 81.25%. Eight (25%) of the patients experienced adverse effects after the immediate switch. One patient with generalized-onset epilepsy needed to quit LCM due to an increase in seizures. Seizure frequency did not change in three patients in the focal-onset group. Immediate switch to LCM showed favorable outcomes with a significant reduction in seizure frequency, high retention rates, and tolerable adverse effect profiles in both focal-onset and generalized-onset seizures.

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.

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.

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.

Anti-inflammatory properties of lacosamide in an astrocyte-microglia co-culture model of inflammation

PURPOSE

Understanding the effects of antiepileptic drugs on glial cells and glia-mediated inflammation is a new approach to future treatment of epilepsy. Little is known about direct effects of the antiepileptic drug lacosamide (LCM) on glial cells. Therefore, we aimed to study the LCM effects on glial viability, microglial activation, expression of gap-junctional (GJ) protein Cx43 as well as intercellular communication in an in vitro astrocyte-microglia co-culture model of inflammation.

METHODS

Primary rat astrocytes co-cultures containing 5% (M5, "physiological" conditions) or 30% (M30, "pathological inflammatory" conditions) of microglia were treated with different concentrations of LCM [5, 15, 30, and 90 μg/ml] for 24 h. Glial cell viability was measured by MTT assay. Immunocytochemistry was performed to analyze the microglial activation state. Western blot analysis was used to quantify the astroglial Cx43 expression. The GJ cell communication was studied via Scrape Loading.

RESULTS

A concentration-dependent incubation with LCM did not affect the glial cell viability both under physiological and pathological conditions. LCM induced a significant concentration-dependent decrease of activated microglia with parallel increase of ramified microglia under pathological inflammatory conditions. This correlated with an increase in astroglial Cx43 expression. Nevertheless, the functional coupling via GJs was significantly reduced after incubation with LCM.

CONCLUSION

LCM has not shown effects on the glial cell viability. The reduced GJ coupling by LCM could be related to its anti-epileptic activity. The anti-inflammatory glial features of LCM with inhibition of microglial activation under inflammatory conditions support beneficial role in epilepsy associated with neuroinflammation.

Efficacy and tolerability of antiseizure drugs

Drug-resistant epilepsy occurs in 25-30% of patients. Furthermore, treatment with a first-generation antiseizure drug (ASD) fails in 30-40% of individuals because of their intolerable adverse effects. Over the past three decades, 20 newer- (second- and third-)generation ASDs with unique mechanisms of action and pharmacokinetic profiles have been introduced into clinical practice. This advent has expanded the therapeutic armamentarium of epilepsy and broadens the choices of ASDs to match the individual patient's characteristics. In recent years, research has been focused on defining the ASD of choice for different seizure types. In 2017, the International League Against Epilepsy published a new classification for seizure types and epilepsy syndrome. This classification has been of paramount importance to accurately classify the patient's seizure type(s) and prescribe the ASD that is appropriate. A year later, the American Academy of Neurology published a new guideline for ASD selection in adult and pediatric patients with new-onset and treatment-resistant epilepsy. The guideline primarily relied on studies that compare the first-generation and second-generation ASDs, with limited data for the efficacy of third-generation drugs. While researchers have been called for investigating those drugs in future research, epilepsy specialists may wish to share their personal experiences to support the treatment guidelines. Given the rapid advances in the development of ASDs in recent years and the continuous updates in definitions, classifications, and treatment guidelines for seizure types and epilepsy syndromes, this review aims to present a complete overview of the current state of the literature about the efficacy and tolerability of ASDs and provide guidance to clinicians about selecting appropriate ASDs for initial treatment of epilepsy according to different seizure types and epilepsy syndromes based on the current literature and recent US and UK practical guidelines.

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.

Long-term safety and tolerability of lacosamide monotherapy in patients with epilepsy: Results from a multicenter, open-label trial

The primary objective of this trial (SP1042; NCT02582866) was to assess long‐term safety and tolerability of lacosamide monotherapy (200‐600 mg/day) in adults with focal (partial‐onset) seizures or generalized tonic‐clonic seizures (without clear focal origin). This Phase III, long‐term, open‐label, multicenter, follow‐up trial enrolled patients with epilepsy who were taking lacosamide in, and completed, the previous double‐blind trial (SP0994; NCT01465997). Primary safety outcomes were treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs), discontinuations due to TEAEs, and serious TEAEs. One hundred and six patients were enrolled and received lacosamide: 84 (79.2%) completed the trial and 22 (20.8%) discontinued. The median duration of exposure was 854.0 days, with a median modal dose of 200 mg/day. Ninety‐six (90.6%), 64 (60.4%), and 44 (41.5%) patients had ≥12, ≥24, and ≥36 months of lacosamide exposure, respectively. At least one TEAE was reported by 61 (57.5%) patients. The most common (≥4%) TEAEs were headache (10 [9.4%]), nasopharyngitis (eight [7.5%]), and back pain (five [4.7%]). One (0.9%) patient discontinued due to a TEAE (sudden unexpected death in epilepsy; not considered drug‐related), 14 (13.2%) patients reported serious TEAEs, and seven (6.6%) patients reported TEAEs that were considered drug‐related. Overall, long‐term lacosamide monotherapy was generally well tolerated up to 600 mg/day, with no new safety signals identified.

Lacosamide in patients with epilepsy of cerebrovascular etiology

OBJECTIVES

To assess tolerability and efficacy of lacosamide in adults with cerebrovascular epilepsy etiology (CVEE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Exploratory post hoc analyses of a double-blind, initial monotherapy trial of lacosamide vs carbamazepine-controlled release (carbamazepine-CR) (SP0993; NCT01243177); a double-blind conversion to lacosamide monotherapy trial (SP0902; NCT00520741); and an observational study of adjunctive lacosamide added to one antiepileptic drug (SP0973 VITOBA; NCT01098162). Patients with CVEE were identified based on epilepsy etiology recorded at baseline.

RESULTS

In the initial monotherapy trial, 61 patients had CVEE (lacosamide: 27; carbamazepine-CR: 34). 20 (74.1%) patients on lacosamide (27 [79.4%] on carbamazepine-CR) reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), most commonly (≥10%) headache, dizziness, and fatigue (carbamazepine-CR: headache, dizziness). A numerically higher proportion of patients on lacosamide than carbamazepine-CR completed 6 months (22 [81.5%]; 20 [58.8%]) and 12 months (18 [66.7%]; 17 [50.0%]) treatment without seizure at last evaluated dose. In the conversion to monotherapy trial, 26/30 (86.7%) patients with CVEE reported TEAEs, most commonly (≥4 patients) dizziness, convulsion, fatigue, headache, somnolence, and cognitive disorder. During lacosamide monotherapy, 17 (56.7%) patients were 50% responders and six (20.0%) were seizure-free. In the observational study, 36/83 (43.4%) patients with CVEE reported TEAEs, most commonly (≥5%) fatigue and dizziness. Effectiveness was assessed for 75 patients. During the last 3 months, 60 (80%) were 50% responders and 42 (56.0%) were seizure-free.

CONCLUSIONS

These exploratory post hoc analyses suggested lacosamide was generally well tolerated and effective in patients with CVEE, with data from the initial monotherapy trial suggesting numerically better efficacy than carbamazepine-CR.

Drug Development for Rare Paediatric Epilepsies: Current State and Future Directions

Rare diseases provide a challenge in the evaluation of new therapies. However, orphan drug development is of increasing interest because of the legislation enabling facilitated support by regulatory agencies through scientific advice, and the protection of the molecules with orphan designation. In the landscape of the rare epilepsies, very few syndromes, namely Dravet syndrome, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and West syndrome, have been subject to orphan drug development. Despite orphan designations for rare epilepsies having dramatically increased in the past 10 years, the number of approved drugs remains limited and restricted to a handful of epilepsy syndromes. In this paper, we describe the current state of orphan drug development for rare epilepsies. We identified a large number of compounds currently under investigation, but mostly in the same rare epilepsy syndromes as in the past. A rationale for further development in rare epilepsies could be based on the match between the drug mechanisms of action and the knowledge of the causative gene mutation or by evidence from animal models. In case of the absence of strong pathophysiological hypotheses, exploratory/basket clinical studies could be helpful to identify a subpopulation that may benefit from the new drug. We provide some suggestions for future improvements in orphan drug development such as promoting paediatric drug investigations, better evaluation of the incidence and the prevalence, together with the natural history data, and the development of new primary outcomes.

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.

Tolerability and efficacy of lacosamide and controlled-release carbamazepine monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy and concomitant psychiatric conditions: Post hoc analysis of a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial

Psychiatric comorbidities are common in patients with epilepsy. A double-blind noninferiority monotherapy trial (SP0993; NCT01243177) enrolled newly diagnosed patients (≥16 years) with focal or generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Patients were randomized 1:1 to lacosamide or carbamazepine controlled-release (carbamazepine-CR). Here, we report data from an exploratory post hoc analysis of patients who reported ongoing psychiatric conditions (Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities System Organ Class). Of 886 treated patients in the trial, 126 (14.2%; 64 on lacosamide; 62 on carbamazepine-CR) reported at least one ongoing psychiatric condition at screening, most commonly depression (38.1%), insomnia (27.8%), and anxiety (26.2%). In this subgroup, 32/64 (50.0%) patients on lacosamide and 22/62 (35.5%) on carbamazepine-CR completed the trial. The most common reasons for discontinuation in patients on lacosamide and carbamazepine-CR were adverse events (10.9%, 24.2%) and lack of efficacy (18.8%, 11.3%). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 52 (81.3%) of patients on lacosamide and 56 (90.3%) of patients on carbamazepine-CR, most commonly (≥10% patients in either treatment group; lacosamide, carbamazepine-CR) dizziness (12.5%, 16.1%), headache (12.5%, 14.5%), nasopharyngitis (12.5%, 9.7%), fatigue (7.8%, 14.5%), nausea (7.8%, 11.3%), somnolence (1.6%, 12.9%), and gamma-glutamyltransferase increase (1.6%, 12.9%). Overall, 15 (23.4%) lacosamide-treated and 10 (16.1%) carbamazepine-CR treated patients reported psychiatric TEAEs, most commonly (≥3 patients in either treatment group; lacosamide, carbamazepine-CR) depression (4.7%, 0) and anxiety (3.1%, 6.5%). There were no reports of psychotic disorder, epileptic psychosis, acute psychosis, or serious psychiatric TEAEs. Stratified Kaplan-Meier estimates for 6- and 12-month seizure freedom at the last evaluated dose were similar with lacosamide and carbamazepine-CR (6 months 81.0%, 75.6%; 12 months 62.5%, 66.6%). A higher proportion of patients on lacosamide than carbamazepine-CR completed 6 (67.2%, 45.2%) and 12 months (50.0%, 37.1%) of treatment at the last evaluated dose without a seizure. This exploratory post hoc analysis indicated that lacosamide monotherapy was efficacious and generally well tolerated in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy and concomitant psychiatric conditions. In this subpopulation, lacosamide showed similar efficacy and numerically better effectiveness than carbamazepine-CR.

Efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive lacosamide in pediatric patients with focal seizures

Objective

To evaluate efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive lacosamide in children and adolescents with uncontrolled focal (partial-onset) seizures.

Methods

In this double-blind trial (SP0969; NCT01921205), patients (age ≥4–<17 years) with uncontrolled focal seizures were randomized (1:1) to adjunctive lacosamide/placebo. After a 6-week titration, patients who reached the target dose range for their weight (<30 kg: 8–12 mg/kg/d oral solution; ≥30–<50 kg: 6–8 mg/kg/d oral solution; ≥50 kg: 300–400 mg/d tablets) entered a 10-week maintenance period. The primary outcome was change in focal seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline to maintenance.

Results

Three hundred forty-three patients were randomized; 306 (lacosamide 152 of 171 [88.9%]; placebo 154 of 172 [89.5%]) completed treatment (titration and maintenance). Adverse events (AEs) were the most common reasons for discontinuation during treatment (lacosamide 4.1%; placebo 5.8%). From baseline to maintenance, percent reduction in focal seizure frequency per 28 days for lacosamide (n = 170) vs placebo (n = 168) was 31.7% (p = 0.0003). During maintenance, median percent reduction in focal seizure frequency per 28 days was 51.7% for lacosamide and 21.7% for placebo. Fifty percent responder rates (≥50% reduction) were 52.9% and 33.3% (odds ratio 2.17, p = 0.0006). During treatment, treatment-emergent AEs were reported by 67.8% lacosamide-treated patients (placebo 58.1%), most commonly (≥10%) somnolence (14.0%, placebo 5.2%) and dizziness (10.5%, placebo 3.5%).

Conclusions

Adjunctive lacosamide was efficacious in reducing seizure frequency and generally well tolerated in patients (age ≥4–<17 years) with focal seizures.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:

NCT01921205.

Classification of evidence

This trial provides Class I evidence that for children and adolescents with uncontrolled focal seizures, adjunctive lacosamide reduces seizure frequency.

Rashes and other hypersensitivity reactions associated with antiepileptic drugs: A review of current literature

This article provides an overview of the pathogenesis and risk factors associated with antiepileptic drug (AED) hypersensitivity reactions, provides prescribing guidelines that may minimize the risk of antiepileptic induced rashes, and discusses treatment options for rashes. Articles indexed in PubMed, Science Citation, and Google Scholar (January 1946-March 2019) were systematic searched using the following key terms: hypersensitivity, rash, antiepileptic, epilepsy, cross-sensitivity, desensitization, patch testing and supplemented with our clinical experiences. Additional references were identified from a review of literature citations. AEDs are associated with cutaneous adverse reactions. Aromatic AEDs and higher titration rates are associated with increased risk of hypersensitivity reaction. Patient characteristics, underlying health conditions, and genetic variations may increase the likelihood of a hypersensitivity reaction. Once a hypersensitivity reaction occurs, the likelihood of cross sensitivity to another AED increases, especially among other aromatic AEDs. Withdrawal of the causal agent and initiation of a lower risk agent usually leads to resolution of symptoms. Desensitization protocols may be an option for patients whose seizures only respond to the AED causing the rash.

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.

Switching from traditional sodium channel blockers to lacosamide in patients with epilepsy

PURPOSE

Lacosamide (LCM) is a recently developed sodium channel blocker (SCB), which acts mainly on the slow activation state in sodium channels. Although LCM shares a range of dose-dependent adverse effects with traditional SCBs, it has several advantages in that it does not induce hepatic drug metabolizing enzymes and has less risk of drug interactions and idiosyncratic adverse effects.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and tolerability of switching from traditional SCBs to LCM. The reason for the switch was classified as insufficient efficacy, adverse effects, or concern about metabolic derangement, resulting in conditions such as atherosclerosis and osteoporosis, with long-term use of traditional SCBs.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients were switched to LCM from traditional SCBs. The overall rate of successful switching was high (81.3%, 61/75 patients). However, the success rate was strongly dependent on the reason for the switch; patients with insufficient efficacy on SCBs had less chance of a successful switch (71.8%, 28/39 patients) than those with adverse effects (89.5%, 17/19) or concerns about metabolic derangement (94.1%, 16/17, p =  0.038). Patients with insufficient efficacy were significantly younger (p =  0.004) and had a higher chance of drug-resistant epilepsy (p =  0.004) than those in the other two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that switching from traditional SCBs to LCM is usually successful and the likelihood of a successful switch is higher in patients when the reason for the switch is adverse effects or concerns about metabolic derangement on traditional SCBs.

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.

From clinical trials of antiepileptic drugs to treatment

Rational prescribing should be based on the assessment of high-quality evidence about the benefits and risks of available treatment options. Because clinical trials, particularly randomized controlled trials (RCTs), provide the best source of evidence, their design and results need to be carefully scrutinized. The majority of RCTs of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) have been designed to address regulatory requirements, and generally they involve restrictive eligibility criteria, rigid dosing schemes, short duration of follow-up, and comparison with placebo rather than standard treatments. Although these studies have high internal validity, they are conducted in a setting that is distant from routine clinical practice and therefore their usefulness in guiding treatment decisions is limited. Information more directly applicable to clinical practice can be derived from a relatively small number of comparative effectiveness monotherapy RCTs, although the design of some of these studies was probably biased in favor of the sponsor's product. Alarmingly, there is a paucity of well-designed trials in epilepsy syndromes other than focal epilepsies, and no RCTs at all in most of the less common epileptic syndromes of infancy and childhood. In the light of these shortcomings, there is scope for re-assessing regulatory requirements to facilitate generation of data more directly applicable to the routine clinical setting. Likewise, research-funding organizations should be sensitized about the lack of adequate evidence to guide therapeutic practice in epilepsy, and the need to promote high-quality comparative effectiveness trials. Future prospective pragmatic trials may benefit from the increasingly widespread availability of electronic health records.

Practice guideline update summary: Efficacy and tolerability of the new antiepileptic drugs II: Treatment-resistant epilepsy: Report of the American Epilepsy Society and the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology

Objective: To update the 2004 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guideline for managing treatment-resistant (TR) epilepsy with second- and third-generation antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Methods: 2004 criteria were used to systematically review literature (January 2003 to November 2015), classify pertinent studies according to the therapeutic rating scheme, and link recommendations to evidence strength. Results: Forty-two articles were included. Recommendations: The following are established as effective to reduce seizure frequency (Level A): immediate-release pregabalin and perampanel for TR adult focal epilepsy (TRAFE); vigabatrin for TRAFE (not first-line treatment; rufinamide for Lennox-Gastuat syndrome (LGS) (add-on therapy). The following should be considered to decrease seizure frequency (Level B): lacosamide, eslicarbazepine, and extended-release topiramate for TRAFE (ezogabine production discontinued); immediate- and extended-release lamotrigine for generalized epilepsy with TR generalized tonic-clonic (GTC) seizures in adults; levetiracetam (add-on therapy) for TR childhood focal epilepsy (TRCFE) (1 month to 16 years), TR GTC seizures, and TR juvenile myoclonic epilepsy; clobazam for LGS (add-on therapy); zonisamide for TRCFE (6-17 years); oxcarbazepine for TRCFE (1 month to 4 years). The text presents Level C recommendations. AED selection depends on seizure/syndrome type, patient age, concomitant medications, and AED tolerability, safety, and efficacy. This evidence-based assessment informs AED prescription guidelines for TR epilepsy and indicates seizure types and syndromes needing more evidence. A recent FDA strategy allows extrapolation of efficacy across populations; therefore, for focal epilepsy, eslicarbazepine and lacosamide (oral only for pediatric use) as add-on or monotherapy in persons ≥4 years of age and perampanel as monotherapy received FDA approval.

Efficacy and tolerability of treatment with lacosamide: Postmarketing experience from the Middle East region

PURPOSE

Lacosamide (LCM) was recently introduced in the Middle East. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of LCM in patients with focal onset seizures and determine if our results are comparable with those derived from Western countries.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis from two medical centers on consecutive patients diagnosed as having focal onset seizures and treated with add-on LCM. The primary efficacy variables were the 50% responder and seizure-free rates, and the secondary outcome variables included the percentages of patients who achieved seizure remission during the last 6-month follow-up period and the percentages of discontinuation due to lack of efficacy or tolerability.

RESULTS

One hundred four patients with a mean age of 30.9 years and experiencing a mean of 9.4 seizures per month during baseline were included. The 50% responder rates were 69% and 70% at 6- and 24-month follow-ups, respectively. Patients concomitantly treated with a sodium channel blocker were less likely to achieve seizure remission during the last 6-month follow-up period while the early introduction of LCM resulted in a significantly higher likelihood of achieving such a remission. Eighty-eight percent of patients were still maintained on LCM at the last follow-up, and the most common adverse events consisted of dizziness and somnolence, double vision, and nausea/vomiting.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show similar efficacy and tolerability to those reported from Western countries. Our results also substantiate the early introduction of LCM and support the dose reduction of baseline AED especially that of sodium channel blockers to minimize adverse events.

Practice guideline update summary: Efficacy and tolerability of the new antiepileptic drugs II: Treatment-resistant epilepsy

Objective

To update the 2004 American Academy of Neurology guideline for managing treatment-resistant (TR) epilepsy with second- and third-generation antiepileptic drugs (AEDs).

Methods

2004 criteria were used to systemically review literature (January 2003 to November 2015), classify pertinent studies according to the therapeutic rating scheme, and link recommendations to evidence strength.

Results

Forty-two articles were included.

Recommendations

The following are established as effective to reduce seizure frequency (Level A): immediate-release pregabalin and perampanel for TR adult focal epilepsy (TRAFE); vigabatrin for TRAFE (not first-line treatment); rufinamide for Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) (add-on therapy). The following should be considered to decrease seizure frequency (Level B): lacosamide, eslicarbazepine, and extended-release topiramate for TRAFE (ezogabine production discontinued); immediate- and extended-release lamotrigine for generalized epilepsy with TR generalized tonic-clonic (GTC) seizures in adults; levetiracetam (add-on therapy) for TR childhood focal epilepsy (TRCFE) (1 month–16 years), TR GTC seizures, and TR juvenile myoclonic epilepsy; clobazam for LGS (add-on therapy); zonisamide for TRCFE (6–17 years); oxcarbazepine for TRCFE (1 month–4 years). The text presents Level C recommendations. AED selection depends on seizure/syndrome type, patient age, concomitant medications, and AED tolerability, safety, and efficacy. This evidence-based assessment informs AED prescription guidelines for TR epilepsy and indicates seizure types and syndromes needing more evidence. A recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) strategy allows extrapolation of efficacy across populations; therefore, for focal epilepsy, eslicarbazepine and lacosamide (oral only for pediatric use) as add-on or monotherapy in persons ≥4 years of age and perampanel as monotherapy received FDA approval.

Time-to-Seizure Modeling of Lacosamide Used in Monotherapy in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Epilepsy

Objectives

To quantify the relationship between exposure to lacosamide monotherapy and seizure probability, and to simulate the effect of changing the dose regimen.

Methods

Structural time-to-event models for dropouts (not because of a lack of efficacy) and seizures were developed using data from 883 adult patients newly diagnosed with epilepsy and experiencing focal or generalized tonic–clonic seizures, participating in a trial (SP0993; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01243177) comparing the efficacy of lacosamide and carbamazepine controlled-release monotherapy. Lacosamide dropout and seizure models were used for simulating the effect of changing the initial target dose on seizure freedom.

Results

Repeated time-to-seizure data were described by a Weibull distribution with parameters estimated separately for the first and subsequent seizures. Daily area under the plasma concentration–time curve was related linearly to the log-hazard. Disease severity, expressed as the number of seizures during the 3 months before the trial (baseline), was a strong predictor of seizure probability: patients with 7–50 seizures at baseline had a 2.6-fold (90% confidence interval 2.01–3.31) higher risk of seizures compared with the reference two to six seizures. Simulations suggested that a 400-mg/day, rather than a 200-mg/day initial target dose for patients with seven or more seizures at baseline could potentially result in an additional 8% of seizure-free patients for 6 months at the last evaluated dose level. Patients receiving lacosamide had a slightly lower dropout risk compared with those receiving carbamazepine.

Conclusion

Baseline disease severity was the most important predictor of seizure probability. Simulations suggest that an initial target dose >200 mg/day could potentially benefit patients with greater disease severity.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40262-017-0530-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

A retrospective, multicentre study of perampanel given as monotherapy in routine clinical care in people with epilepsy

PURPOSE

Perampanel is approved for adjunctive treatment of focal seizures, with or without secondarily generalised seizures, and for primary generalised tonic-clonic seizures in people with epilepsy aged ≥12 years. Perampanel was recently approved for monotherapy use for partial seizures in the United States. This study provides insight into the feasibility of perampanel monotherapy in real-world settings.

METHODS

This retrospective, non-interventional, multicentre study (NCT02736162) was conducted between January 2013 and March 2016 in specialist epilepsy centres in Europe and Russia. Eligible individuals had a diagnosis of epilepsy and received perampanel primary or secondary monotherapy as routine clinical care. The primary endpoint was proportion of individuals remaining on perampanel monotherapy, after conversion from perampanel adjunctive treatment, at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months (retention rate).

RESULTS

Sixty individuals were in the safety set (female, 63%; white, 97%; aged 18 to <65 years, 73%). Most (85%) received secondary monotherapy with perampanel. At study cut-off, 68% of individuals were continuing on perampanel monotherapy (secondary monotherapy: 55%). The median duration of retention was not calculable due to the high number of individuals ongoing on monotherapy. Twelve individuals had treatment-emergent adverse events that started during perampanel monotherapy, the most frequent was dizziness (5%). One serious treatment-emergent adverse event was reported (pneumonia during adjunctive perampanel treatment).

CONCLUSIONS

In this small retrospective study of individuals who received perampanel monotherapy, the majority maintained monotherapy. Perampanel monotherapy may be an achievable option in some people with epilepsy.

Evaluation of brivaracetam efficacy as monotherapy in adult patients with focal seizures

Brivaracetam is a selective, high-affinity ligand for synaptic vesicle protein 2A, recently approved as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of focal (partial-onset) seizures in patients 16 years of age and older with epilepsy. The goal of the present analysis was to determine if the dose-response of brivaracetam as monotherapy would fall within the range associated with brivaracetam efficacy as adjunctive therapy. An existing brivaracetam population pharmacokinetic model consisting of first-order absorption, single compartment distribution, and first-order elimination components was extended by estimating the clearance changes due to co-administration of 12 widely prescribed AEDs. Data for the population pharmacokinetic analysis originated from three Phase III add-on trials and two terminated Phase III monotherapy trials. An existing population model of daily seizure rate versus brivaracetam daily average concentration was applied to the data from the three add-on trials. Simulations allowed the assessment of the combined impact of covariate effects on both the pharmacokinetics and the pharmacodynamics of brivaracetam, and indicated that in the absence of other AEDs, only marginal changes in the overall dose-response relationship would be expected. This suggests that brivaracetam can be used as monotherapy without dose modifications.

Methodological issues associated with clinical trials in epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

despite methodological advances in epilepsy clinical trials, the proportion of patients reaching seizure-freedom has not substantially changed over the years. We review the main methodological limitations of current trials, the possible strategies to overcome these limits, and the issues that need to be addressed in next future. Area covered: references were identified by PubMed search until March 2017 and unpublished literature was searched on ClinicalTrials.gov. Add-on trials mainly involve refractory epilepsy subjects, reducing overall response to the investigational drug. The inclusion of subjects with earlier disease from less developed countries has partially allowed overcoming this limitation, but has introduced more random variability of results. Monotherapy trials rise methodological, economical, and ethical concerns with different regulatory requirements in European Union and in the United States of America. Newer trial designs, such as futility trials or 'time-to-event' design, have been implemented. Moreover, both add-on and monotherapy trials results might be affected by patient's ability to recognize and record seizures, and by randomness of seizures occurrence over time. Possible strategies to achieve more reliable outcomes are detailed. Expert commentary: clinical trial methodology needs to be optimized to better address regulatory agencies requirements and to encounter both patients' and clinicians' needs.

Sodium Channel Blockers in the Treatment of Epilepsy

Sodium channel blockers have been the mainstay of the pharmacological management of focal and generalised tonic-clonic seizures for more than 70 years. The focus of this paper will be on phenytoin, carbamazepine, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, rufinamide, lacosamide and eslicarbazepine acetate. All these antiepileptic drugs have similar efficacy and share similar dose-dependent, adverse effect profiles, although phenytoin, carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine are more likely to cause idiosyncratic reactions than the others. With the exception of lamotrigine, rufinamide and lacosamide, all are enzyme inducers and most are minor teratogens; although data on teratogenicity are sparse with lacosamide and eslicarbazepine acetate. There is increasing evidence that these drugs differ mechanistically, with the newer agents, lacosamide and eslicarbazepine acetate, having their major pharmacological effect on the slow inactivation state of the sodium channel, which may be associated with better tolerability at higher dosage, although hard evidence in support of this observation is currently not available. Rufinamide is licensed only for Lennox-Gastaut syndrome in children aged 4 years and above. There is a move away from using enzyme inducers, particularly phenytoin and carbamazepine, in everyday clinical practice. There seems little doubt, however, that some sodium channel blockers will have an enduring place in the management of epilepsy well into the 21st century.

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.

New developments in the management of partial-onset epilepsy: role of brivaracetam

Currently, a number of novel anticonvulsant drugs, the so-called third generation, are in various stages of development. Several of them are already available or in ongoing clinical trials. These new compounds should take advantage of new insights into the basic pathophysiology of epileptogenesis, drug metabolism and drug interactions. Many of them still need to be further evaluated mainly in real-world observational trials and registries. Among newer anticonvulsant drugs for partial-onset seizures (POSs), rufinamide, lacosamide, eslicarbazepine and perampanel are those new treatment options for which more substantial clinical evidence is currently available, both in adults and, to some extent, in children. Among the newest anticonvulsant drugs, brivaracetam, a high-affinity synaptic vesicle protein 2A ligand, reported to be 10- to 30-fold more potent than levetiracetam, is highly effective in a broad range of experimental models of focal and generalized seizures. Unlike levetiracetam, brivaracetam does not inhibit high-voltage Ca2+ channels and AMPA receptors and appears to inhibit neuronal voltage-gated sodium channels playing a role as a partial antagonist. Brivaracetam has a linear pharmacokinetic profile, is extensively metabolized and is excreted by urine (only 8%-11% unchanged). It does not seem to influence the pharmacokinetics of other antiepileptic drugs. It was approved in the European Union in January 2016 and in the US in February 2016 as an adjunctive therapy for the treatment of POS in patients older than 16 years of age. To date, its clinical efficacy as adjunctive antiepileptic treatment in adults with refractory POS at doses between 50 and 200 mg daily has been extensively assessed in two Phase IIb and four Phase III randomized controlled studies. Long-term extension studies show sustained efficacy of brivaracetam. Overall, the drug is generally well tolerated with only mild-to-moderate side effects. This is true also by intravenous route. Brivaracetam has not yet been evaluated as monotherapy or in comparison with other new anticonvulsant drugs.

Tolerability and Safety of Commonly Used Antiepileptic Drugs in Adolescents and Adults: A Clinician's Overview

This paper discusses the issues surrounding the tolerability and safety of the commonly used antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in adolescents and adults. The content includes dose-related adverse effects, idiosyncratic reactions, behavioural and psychiatric comorbidities, chronic problems, enzyme induction and teratogenesis. Twenty-one AEDs are discussed in chronological order of their introduction into the UK, starting with phenobarbital and ending with brivaracetam. Wherever possible, advice is given on anticipating, recognising and managing these issues and thereby improving the lives of people with epilepsy, most of whom will need to take one or more of these agents for life. Avoidance of side effects will increase the possibility of achieving and maintaining long-term seizure freedom. Alternatively, adverse events from AEDs will substantially reduce quality of life and often result in higher healthcare costs.

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.

Lacosamide for uncontrolled primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures: An open-label pilot study with 59-week extension

OBJECTIVE

Assess the safety of adjunctive lacosamide for the treatment of uncontrolled primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in patients (16-65 years) with primary generalized (genetic) epilepsy (PGE).

METHODS

An open-label pilot safety study (SP0961; NCT01118949), comprising 12 weeks' historical baseline, 4 weeks' prospective baseline, 3 weeks' titration (target: 400mg/day adjunctive lacosamide) and 6 weeks' maintenance. Patients who continued to the extension study (SP0962; NCT01118962) then received ≤59 weeks of flexible treatment (100-800mg/day lacosamide with flexible dosing of concomitant antiepileptic drugs). The primary outcomes for SP0961 were the mean change (±standard deviation) in absence seizure or myoclonic seizure days per 28days from prospective baseline to maintenance; for SP0962, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and withdrawals because of TEAEs.

RESULTS

Of the 49 patients who enrolled, 40 (82%) completed the pilot study and 9 discontinued (5 because of adverse events). Of the 39 patients who continued to the extension study, 10 discontinued (2 owing to TEAEs) and 29 (74%) completed the study. During the pilot study, patients reported a reduction in mean (±standard deviation) absence and myoclonic seizure days per 28days (-0.37±4.80, -2.19±5.80). Reductions were also observed during the extension study (-2.38±5.54, -2.78±6.43). Five patients in SP0961 and 2 patients in SP0962 experienced TEAEs of new or increased frequency of absence seizures or myoclonic seizures. The most common TEAEs during SP0961 were dizziness (39%) and nausea (27%), and during SP0962 were dizziness (26%) and upper respiratory tract infection (26%).

CONCLUSIONS

The safety profile of adjunctive lacosamide was similar to that previously published. Adjunctive lacosamide did not systematically worsen absence or myoclonic seizures, and appears to be well tolerated in patients with PGE.

NEOPLASM study: Real-life use of lacosamide in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy

BACKGROUND

The choice of antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE) is complicated, and there are a lack of robust clinical trial data to date.

METHODS

The NEOPLASM (Neuroncologic Patients treated with LAcoSaMide) study was a 6-month, multicenter, retrospective, observational study in patients with BTRE treated with lacosamide. Patients were started on lacosamide because of a lack of efficacy or adverse events (AEs) with prior AEDs or suitability versus other AEDs, according to clinical practice. The primary efficacy variable was the seizure-free rate at 6months. Safety variables included the proportion of patients with an AE and the proportion with an AE that led to discontinuation.

RESULTS

Overall, 105 patients from 14 hospital centers were included in the analysis. Treatment with lacosamide for 6months resulted in a 30.8% seizure-free rate, and 66.3% of patients had a ≥50% seizure reduction (responders). In the subset of patients included because of a lack of efficacy with prior AEDs, seizure-free rates were 28.0%, and 66.7% of patients were responders. No statistically significant differences in efficacy were observed according to the mechanism of action or enzyme-inducing properties of concomitant AEDs. Adverse events were reported by 41.9% of patients at 6months, and 4.7% of them led to discontinuation. The most common AEs were somnolence/fatigue and dizziness. Notably, 57.1% of the patients who were switched to lacosamide because of AEs with their previous therapy did not report any AE at 6-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In this open-label, observational study, lacosamide appeared to be effective and well tolerated in a large population of patients with BTRE. Lacosamide may therefore be a promising option for the treatment of patients with BTRE.

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.