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

Switching carbamazepine to lacosamide improves gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase levels

Carbamazepine (CBZ) use has been limited by multiple adverse reactions. Lacosamide (LCM) is a functional amino acid anti-seizure medication (ASM), approved for focal seizure patients more than 4 years old. It is non-inferior in terms of efficacy to controlled release CBZ and was proven to have better tolerability. This study examines the effect of abruptly changing CBZ to LCM in epilepsy patients with elevated gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT). Consenting adult patients aged 18 years old and above, with controlled focal seizure disorder for more than 2 years, who were consistently taking CBZ and who had elevated GGT were included in this study. Out of 1526 patients screened, only 12 satisfied the inclusion criteria. After abruptly changing CBZ to LCM, the GGT level significantly dropped from a median of 141.5 to 63.5 IU/L (z = 3.06, p = 0.0005). Moreover, there was significantly lower proportion of patients with abnormal GGT levels after the switch in medications was done (100% vs. 66.7%, McNemar χ2 = 8, p = 0.008). Moderate to high levels of GGT in patients with focal epilepsy can be decreased by changing CBZ to LCM. Moreover, abruptly changing CBZ to LCM without cross-titration may be safe and effective in preventing seizure incidence within a 1-month period. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Although carbamazepine (CBZ) is the standard drug for focal seizures, its numerous side effects, especially in the liver, limits its use in a lot of patients with epilepsy. Gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), which is elevated in liver disease of whatever cause including intake of CBZ, is associated with increased mortality. In this study, we found that abruptly changing CBZ to Lacosamide (LCM) can significantly decrease the GGT level in 1 month without apparent increase in seizure recurrence and side effects. Therefore, we conclude that high levels of GGT may be decreased by abruptly changing CBZ to LCM.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive Lacosamide therapy for focal seizures in young children aged ≥1 month to ≤4 years: A real-world study

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive lacosamide therapy against focal seizures in young children (1 month - 4 years).

METHODS

This non-randomized, open-label, and self-controlled real-world study included 105 children (1 month-4 years) with focal seizures treated with adjunctive lacosamide therapy at Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University.

RESULTS

(1) The 50% response rates at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of follow-up were 58.1%, 61.0%, 57.1%, and 56.2%, while the seizure-free rates were 27.6%, 34.3%, 32.4%, and 37.1%, respectively. The 50% response rate of the first addition of lacosamide for focal seizures was much higher than the second and later added treatment at 3 months (p = 0.038). After 1 year of follow-up, these children showed an improvement in neurodevelopmental levels (p < 0.05). (2) Lacosamide retention rate was 72.7% (64/88) after 1 year of follow-up. Lack of efficacy and serious adverse events were independent risk factors for the lacosamide retention rate. (3) During adjunctive lacosamide therapy, 13 (12.4%) patients reported adverse events and five (4.7%) patients withdrew due to adverse events, including vomiting drowsiness, ataxia (0.94%), neck itching with eczema (0.94%), irritability (1.88%), and gastrointestinal discomfort (0.94%).

CONCLUSION

Adjunctive lacosamide therapy was effective, safe, and well-tolerated in young Chinese children with focal seizures in this study.

Safety and efficacy of levetiracetam and carbamazepine monotherapy in the management of pediatric focal epilepsy: a randomized clinical trial

Due to the limited number of studies in children with focal epilepsy and the importance of choosing the most suitable drug to control seizures in children, the administration of the most effective medication with the most negligible adverse events is vital. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and adverse events of carbamazepine vs. levetiracetam monotherapy in children with focal seizures. A monocentric, randomized, controlled, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial was designed. This study was approved by the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (registration number: IRCT20170216032603N2) on June 19, 2020, and conducted at the neurology department of Imam Ali Hospital, Karaj, Iran, from February 2020 to March 2021. This study assessed 120 patients with recently diagnosed focal seizures aged 2 to 14. Patients were randomly divided into two groups, who received carbamazepine (CBZ) 15 to 20 mg/kg and levetiracetam (LEV) 20 to 40 mg/kg daily, respectively. Patients were evaluated for improvement and complications at weeks 4, 12, and 24. Out of 120 patients included in the study, six patients were excluded due to various complications of CBZ. The mean number of seizures at the end of the fourth, twelfth, and twenty-fourth weeks were 1.09 ± 0.75, 0.62 ± 0.27, and 0.39 ± 0.12 in the carbamazepine group and 1.11 ± 0.63, 0.52 ± 0.21, and 0.37 ± 0.11 in the LEV group, respectively (P > 0.05). Similarly, the number of seizure-free patients was 34, 44, and 48 in the CBZ group compared to 41, 50, and 54 in the LEV group, respectively (P > 0.05). On the other hand, the frequency of somnolence, dermatologic complications, and agitation was considerably higher in the CBZ group (P < 0.05). Although both medicines were equally effective in seizure control, CBZ was associated with considerably more adverse events and less patient compliance. Physicians should be aware of this difference to prevent unwanted consequences.

Clinical observation and analysis of rash caused by lacosamide in children with epilepsy

PURPOSE

To draw clinical attention to rashes caused by lacosamide.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included patients admitted to the Department of Pediatrics, Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University between January 2021 and September 2023. We focused on patients who developed rashes after lacosamide treatment and analyzed all patients who exhibited rashes after lacosamide treatment to analyze the risk factors.

RESULTS

In total, 190 patients received lacosamide, of whom four developed allergies (2.1 %). Three patients had severe rashes, and two patients had high fever. All of these adverse events improved after the withdrawal of lacosamide. Of the 13 patients reported to date, including the four patients in this study, eight used various antiseizure medicines, including seven patients who used four or more antiseizure medicines. Four patients underwent testing for HLA-B*1502, and two patients were positive. Patients developed rashes within 1-10 days after treatment initiation, and the duration of the rash ranged 2-37 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Lacosamide-induced rash was detected in 2.1 % of patients in our cohort. Rashes are potentially serious, and prompt evaluation is required. Rashes are more likely to occur when multiple antiseizure medicines are used simultaneously, typically within 10 days of treatment initiation.

Risk assessment of arrhythmias related to three antiseizure medications: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis

Objective

Antiseizure medications (ASMs) are first line therapy for seizure disorders. Their effects on arrhythmias, especially the risk of arrhythmias associated with lacosamide (LCM), levetiracetam (LEV), and perampanel (PER), have been intensely investigated.

Methods

We searched four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) until August 6, 2023. We used a common effects model and reported data as pooled incidence with 95% CIs. Meta-analyses were conducted to elucidate the risk of arrhythmias with different drugs, and Egger's regression was performed to detect publication bias analysis.

Results

We included 11 clinical trials with 1,031 participants. The pooled incidence of arrhythmias in the LEV group was 0.005 (95% CI: 0.001-0.013), while it was 0.014 in the LCM group (95% CI: 0.003-0.030). Publication bias analyses indicated no significant bias in the LEV group (t = 0.02, df = 4, p-value = 0.9852) but a significant bias in the LCM group (t = 5.94, df = 3, p-value = 0.0095). We corrected for this bias in the LCM group using the trim-and-fill method, which yielded a similar pooled incidence of 0.0137 (95% CI: 0.0036-0.0280), indicating good reliability. Due to insufficient studies, we could not conduct a meta-analysis for PER, and we analyzed them in our systematic review.

Conclusion

The use of LCM significantly elevated the risk of arrhythmias, while LEV had non-significant arrhythmogenic effects. As for the arrhythmogenic effects of PER, more clinical trials are needed in the future.

Research Status, Synthesis and Clinical Application of Antiepileptic Drugs

According to the 2017 ILAE's official definition, epilepsy is a slow brain disease state characterized by recurrent episodes. Due to information released by ILAE in 2017, it can be divided into four types, including focal epilepsy, generalized epilepsy, combined generalized, and focal epilepsy, and unknown epilepsy. Since 1989, 24 new antiepileptic drugs have been approved to treat different types of epilepsy. Besides, there are a variety of antiepileptic medications under clinical monitoring. These novel antiepileptic drugs have plenty of advantages. Over the past 33 years, there have been many antiepileptic drugs on the mearket, but no one has been found that can completely cure epilepsy. In this paper, the mentioned drugs were classified according to their targets, and the essential information, and clinical studies of each drug were described. The structure-activity relationship of different chemical structures was summarized. This paper provides help for the follow-up research on epilepsy drugs.

Neonatal Cardiac Arrest Following Lacosamide Treatment: A Case Report

BACKGROUND

Lacosamide is an antiepileptic drug with US Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of partial-onset seizures in patients older than one month. Lacosamide works by selective enhancement of proteins that induce preferential slow promotion of sodium channels to the hyperpolarized inactive state. Lacosamide is generally well-tolerated; however, clinical and nonclinical studies have linked its use with cardiac side effects including PR prolongation and atrioventricular (AV) block.

RESULTS

We present the case of a three-week-old female neonatal patient born at 25 weeks' gestation who developed second-degree AV heart block and cardiac arrest after initiating lacosamide therapy. The patient was being treated for neonatal seizure complicated by intraventricular hemorrhage (grade II) and electrolyte disturbances with phenobarbital, levetiracetam, and phenytoin. Before addition of lacosamide therapy, the patient had an unremarkable electrocardiogram and no known cardiac risk factors for lacosamide. After medication discontinuation, the patient experienced no reoccurring episodes or other cardiac events.

CONCLUSION

Use of lacosamide for neonatal populations is currently under evaluation. This is the first report of adverse cardiac event (AV block) in the setting of neonatal lacosamide use. Risk of future adverse cardiac events should be evaluated when determining the safety and efficacy of lacosamide in the neonatal population.

Equipotency of lacosamide to levetiracetam in new onset focal epilepsy: A randomized controlled trial

Objectives

Levetiracetam (LEV) is a well-established broad spectrum antiseizure medication (ASM) effective in focal, generalized, and myoclonic seizures whereas lacosamide (LCM) is a comparatively newer ASM currently approved only as an add-on agent in focal seizures. The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and the tolerability of oral LCM as monotherapy in adult people with epilepsy (PWE) with new onset focal onset epilepsy compared with those receiving LEV.

Materials and Methods

In this open-label single-center non-inferiority trial, PWE aged between 16 and 65 years suffering from new onset focal seizures, with or without secondary generalization were put on LCM monotherapy or LEV monotherapy. Data regarding demographic characteristics, seizure type and etiology, LCM and LEV daily dose, seizure frequency at baseline and at 6 months of follow-up, and seizure freedom rates were recorded.

Results

Thirty-five PWE on LCM (24 males), their mean age: 38.20 ± 16.62 years and 35 PWE on LEV (25 males, mean age: 38.91 ± 17.13 years) were enrolled. The most common type of seizure observed was focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizure >70% followed by focal impaired awareness seizure and focal awareness seizure. Structural epilepsy was found in 21 among LCM group and 22 of LEV group. In the LCM group, the seizure frequency decreased from 3.33 ± 1.88 to 0.85 ± 1.09 (P = 0.001) at 6 months and from 3.61 ± 3.12 to 0.94 ± 1.24 (P = 0.001) in LEV group, intergroup difference (P = 0.74). At 6-month follow-up period, 78.9% in LCM arm and 87.9% in the LEV arm had experienced a 50% of reduction in seizure frequency while seizure freedom was attained in 43.3% of PWE in both the arms (P = 1). The most common treatment emergent adverse effects in the LCM group were fatiguability, dyspepsia, headache, and dizziness, while in the LEV group; somnolence and behavioral abnormality.

Conclusion

Treatment with LCM met the non-inferiority criteria when compared with LEV. Therefore, it might be useful as first-line monotherapy for adults with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy.

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.

Long-term effectiveness and safety of lacosamide as adjunctive therapy in children and adolescents with refractory epilepsy: a real-world study

PURPOSE

The effectiveness and tolerability of lacosamide (LCM) among Chinese children and adolescents with refractory epilepsy has not yet been established. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of LCM among children and adolescents with refractory epilepsy in Xinjiang, Northwest China.

METHODS

Effectiveness was assessed by measuring changes in seizure frequency at 3, 6 and 12 months compared with baseline. Patients that achieved ≥ 50% reduction in the frequency of all seizures per month, relative to baseline, were considered to be responders.

RESULTS

105 children and adolescents with refractory epilepsy were enrolled in the study. The responder rates were 47.6%, 39.2%, and 31.9%, respectively at 3, 6, and 12 months. Seizure freedom rates were 32.4%, 28.9%, and 23.6% at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. The retention rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 92.4%, 78.1%, and 69.5%, respectively. The maintenance dose of LCM within the responder group (8.2 ± 4.5 mg·kg^- 1·d^- 1) was significantly higher compared to the non-responder group (7.3 ± 2.3 mg·kg^- 1·d^- 1) (p < 0.05). At first follow-up, 44 patients (41.9%) reported experiencing at least one treatment-emergent adverse events.

CONCLUSION

This real-world study of children and adolescents validated that LCM was both an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for the treatment of refractory epilepsy.

The therapeutic effects of lacosamide on epilepsy-associated comorbidities

Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder associated with severe social and psychological effects, and most epilepsy patients often report at least one comorbidity. Accumulating evidence have suggested that lacosamide, a new generation of anti-seizure medications, may exhibit efficacy in the management of both epilepsy and its related comorbidities. Therefore, this narrative review aimed to elucidate the recent advancements regarding the therapeutic role of lacosamide in epilepsy-associated comorbidities. The possible pathophysiological mechanisms between epilepsy and epilepsy-associated comorbidities have been also partially described. Whether lacosamide improves cognitive and behavioral functions in patients with epilepsy has not been conclusively established. Some studies support that lacosamide may alleviate anxiety and depression in epilepsy patients. In addition, lacosamide has been found to be safe and effective in the treatment of epilepsy in people with intellectual disabilities, epilepsy of cerebrovascular etiology, and epilepsy associated with brain tumors. Moreover, lacosamide treatment has demonstrated fewer side effects on other systems. Hence, future larger and higher quality clinical studies are needed to further explore both the safety and efficacy of lacosamide in the treatment of epilepsy-associated comorbidities.

Increasing use of newer antiseizure medication during pregnancy: An observational study with special focus on lacosamide

INTRODUCTION

Epilepsy is a common neurological disease requiring long-term therapy also during pregnancy. Most studies on pregnancy outcomes in women with epilepsy are based on antiseizure medication (ASM) in monotherapy. However, about 20-30% of epilepsy patients require polytherapy and newer ASMs are an option, when seizure control is not achieved with first line ASMs.

METHODS

Observational study evaluating the use of newer ASMs with marketing authorization since 2005 reported to the Embryotox Center of Clinical Teratology and Drug Safety in Pregnancy between 2004 and 2019. In addition, course and outcome of lacosamide exposed pregnancies were analysed.

RESULTS

Our study confirms the increasing use of newer ASMs also in pregnant women. This is especially true for lacosamide, eslicarbazepine and brivaracetam with rising numbers of exposed pregnancies soon after marketing authorization. Analysis of 55 prospectively and 10 retrospectively ascertained lacosamide exposed pregnancies does not indicate increased risks of major birth defects or spontaneous abortion. However, bradycardia observed in 3 neonates might be related to prenatal lacosamide exposure.

CONCLUSION

Available data do not support the assumption of lacosamide being a major teratogen. The increasing use of newer ASMs during pregnancy underscores the need for more studies to guide preconception counselling, especially for lacosamide, eslicarbazepine and brivaracetam.

Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2017. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for focal onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however, a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure of 12 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, eventrate, zonisamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with focal onset seizures (simple focal, complex focal or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 12 April 2021: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to April 09, 2021). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) and network meta-analysis (NMA) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to treatment failure', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', and 'time to first seizure post-randomisation'. We performed frequentist NMA to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 12 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct 'pairwise' estimates and NMA results via node splitting. Results are presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using the CiNeMA approach, based on the GRADE framework. We have also provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD were provided for at least one outcome of this review for 14,789 out of a total of 22,049 eligible participants (67% of total data) from 39 out of the 89 eligible trials (43% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 50 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions. No IPD were available from a single trial of eslicarbazepine acetate, so this AED could not be included in the NMA. Network meta-analysis showed high-certainty evidence that for our primary outcome, 'time to treatment failure', for individuals with focal seizures; lamotrigine performs better than most other treatments in terms of treatment failure for any reason and due to adverse events, including the other first-line treatment carbamazepine; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for lamotrigine versus: eventrate 1.01 (0.88 to 1.20), zonisamide 1.18 (0.96 to 1.44), lacosamide 1.19 (0.90 to 1.58), carbamazepine 1.26 (1.10 to 1.44), oxcarbazepine 1.30 (1.02 to 1.66), sodium valproate 1.35 (1.09 to 1.69), phenytoin 1.44 (1.11 to 1.85), topiramate 1.50 (1.23 to 1.81), gabapentin 1.53 (1.26 to 1.85), phenobarbitone 1.97 (1.45 to 2.67). No significant difference between lamotrigine and eventrate was shown for any treatment failure outcome, and both AEDs seemed to perform better than all other AEDs. For people with generalised onset seizures, evidence was more limited and of moderate certainty; no other treatment performed better than first-line treatment sodium valproate, but there were no differences between sodium valproate, lamotrigine or eventrate in terms of treatment failure; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for sodium valproate versus: lamotrigine 1.06 (0.81 to 1.37), eventrate 1.13 (0.89 to 1.42), gabapentin 1.13 (0.61 to 2.11), phenytoin 1.17 (0.80 to 1.73), oxcarbazepine 1.24 (0.72 to 2.14), topiramate 1.37 (1.06 to 1.77), carbamazepine 1.52 (1.18 to 1.96), phenobarbitone 2.13 (1.20 to 3.79), lacosamide 2.64 (1.14 to 6.09). Network meta-analysis also showed high-certainty evidence that for secondary remission outcomes, few notable differences were shown for either seizure type; for individuals with focal seizures, carbamazepine performed better than gabapentin (12-month remission) and sodium valproate (six-month remission). No differences between lamotrigine and any AED were shown for individuals with focal seizures, or between sodium valproate and other AEDs for individuals with generalised onset seizures. Network meta-analysis also showed high- to moderate-certainty evidence that, for 'time to first seizure,' in general, the earliest licensed treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for individuals with focal seizures; phenobarbitone performed better than both first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine. There were no notable differences between the newer drugs (oxcarbazepine, topiramate, gabapentin, eventrate, zonisamide and lacosamide) for either seizure type. Generally, direct evidence (where available) and network meta-analysis estimates were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping. There was no important indication of inconsistency between direct and network meta-analysis results. The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders; however, reporting of adverse events was highly variable across AEDs and across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-certainty evidence demonstrates that for people with focal onset seizures, current first-line treatment options carbamazepine and lamotrigine, as well as newer drug eventrate, show the best profile in terms of treatment failure and seizure control as first-line treatments. For people with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types), current first-line treatment sodium valproate has the best profile compared to all other treatments, but lamotrigine and eventrate would be the most suitable alternative first-line treatments, particularly for those for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option. Further evidence from randomised controlled trials recruiting individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types) is needed.

Sodium channel blockers are effective for benign infantile epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy and tolerance of the antiseizure medications lacosamide (LCM) and levetiracetam (LEV) in patients with benign infantile epilepsy (BIE).

METHODS

The clinical data of 24 children with BIE seen between 2014 and 2020 were collected retrospectively, and treatment, effectiveness, and adverse effects were examined. PRRT2 gene analysis was performed using Sanger sequencing.

RESULTS

Of the 24 children with BIE, 14 were treated with antiseizure medications. PRRT2 gene analysis was performed in 14 children, and mutations were identified in 4, including a pair of siblings. All five children treated with LCM became seizure-free, similar to those treated with carbamazepine. The LCM does was 2 mg/kg/day in all cases. There were no adverse effects in any patient treated with LCM. By contrast, both patients treated with LEV had seizure recurrence. In one patient, LEV was replaced with CBZ, resulting in seizure freedom.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose LCM was effective and well tolerated in patients with BIE, whereas LEV was insufficiently effective.

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.

How Can an Na+ Channel Inhibitor Ameliorate Seizures in Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome?

OBJECTIVE

Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) is an epileptic encephalopathy frequently associated with multiple types of seizures. The classical Na⁺ channel inhibitors are in general ineffective against the seizures in LGS. Rufinamide is a new Na⁺ channel inhibitor, but approved for the treatment of LGS. This is not consistent with a choice of antiseizure drugs (ASDs) according to simplistic categorical grouping.

METHODS

The effect of rufinamide on the Na⁺ channel, cellular discharges, and seizure behaviors was quantitatively characterized in native neurons and mammalian models of epilepsy, and compared with the other Na⁺ channel inhibitors.

RESULTS

With a much faster binding rate to the inactivated Na⁺ channel than phenytoin, rufinamide is distinctively effective if the seizure discharges chiefly involve short bursts interspersed with hyperpolarized interburst intervals, exemplified by spike and wave discharges (SWDs) on electroencephalograms. Consistently, rufinamide, but not phenytoin, suppresses SWD-associated seizures in pentylenetetrazol or AY-9944 models, which recapitulate the major electrophysiological and behavioral manifestations in typical and atypical absence seizures, including LGS.

INTERPRETATION

Na⁺ channel inhibitors shall have sufficiently fast binding to exert an action during the short bursts and then suppress SWDs, in which cases rufinamide is superior. For the epileptiform discharges where the interburst intervals are not so hyperpolarized, phenytoin could be better because of the higher affinity. Na⁺ channel inhibitors with different binding kinetics and affinity to the inactivated channels may have different antiseizure scope. A rational choice of ASDs according to in-depth molecular pharmacology and the attributes of ictal discharges is advisable. ANN NEUROL 2021;89:1099-1113.

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.