Lacosamide as adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures: A randomized controlled trial

Efficacy and safety of add-on antiseizure medications for focal epilepsy: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Several antiseizure medications (ASMs) have been approved for the treatment of focal epilepsy. However, there is a paucity of evidence on direct comparison of ASMs. We evaluated the comparative efficacy and safety of all approved add-on ASMs for the treatment of focal epilepsy using network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Data through extensive literature search was retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrial.gov databases using predefined search terms from inception through March 2023. PRISMA reporting guidelines (CRD42023403450) were followed in this study. Efficacy outcomes assessed were ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% responder rates. Patient retention rate and safety outcomes such as overall treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and individual TEAEs were assessed. "Gemtc" 4.0.4 package was used to perform Bayesian analysis. Outcomes are reported as relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Literature search retrieved 5807 studies of which, 75 studies were included in the analysis. All ASMs showed significantly higher ≥50% responder rate compared with placebo. Except the ≥75% seizure frequency reduction for zonisamide (2.23; 95% CI: 1.00-5.70) and 100% for rufinamide (2.03; 95% CI: 0.54-11.00), all other interventions showed significantly higher ≥75% and 100% responder rates compared with placebo. Among treatments, significantly higher 100% responder rate was observed with cenobamate compared to eslicarbazepine (10.71; 95% CI: 1.56-323.9) and zonisamide (10.63; 95% CI: 1.37-261.2). All ASMs showed a lower patient retention rate compared to placebo, with the least significant value observed for oxcarbazepine (0.77; 95% CI: 0.7-0.84). Levetiracetam showed a lower risk of incidence (1.0; 95%CI: 0.94-1.1; SUCRA: 0.885067) for overall TEAE compared with other medications.

SIGNIFICANCE

All approved ASMs were effective as add-on treatment for focal epilepsy. Of the ASMs included, cenobamate had the greatest likelihood of allowing patients to attain seizure freedom.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

This article compares the efficacy and safety of antiseizure medications (ASMs) currently available to neurologists in the treatment of epileptic patients. Several newer generation ASMs that have been developed may be as effective or better than the older medications. We included 75 studies in the analysis. In comparison, all drugs improved ≥50%, ≥75% and 100% responder rates compared to control, except for Zonisamide and Rufinamide in the ≥75% and 100% responder rate categories. Retention of patients undergoing treatment was lower in drugs than placebo. All drugs were tolerated, the levetiracetam showed the best tolerability. Cenobamate more likely help completely to reduce seizures.

Re-evaluating the placebo response in recent canine dietary epilepsy trials

The placebo response is a common phenomenon. Limited evidence is available about its magnitude in canine epilepsy trials, even though it can significantly influence the efficacy evaluation of new treatments. It was hypothesised that the placebo response is diminished when epilepsy trials are conducted in a prospective crossover design. Seizure data spanning six months from three previous multicenter epilepsy studies were analysed. The monthly seizure frequency of 60 dogs diagnosed with idiopathic epilepsy was calculated, comparing baseline data with placebo treatment. Furthermore, differentiation was made between dogs randomised to the placebo group early (Phase 1: first 3 months) or later during the study (Phase 2: second 3 months).The analysis did not reveal any placebo response in terms of monthly seizure frequency. Instead, an increase was noted during the placebo treatment period, with a mean of 2.95 seizures per month compared to 2.30 seizures per month before study entry (p = 0.0378). Additionally, a notable phase effect was observed. Dogs receiving the placebo in the second study phase exhibited a significant increase in monthly seizure frequency compared to baseline (p = 0.0036). Conversely, no significant difference from baseline was observed for dogs receiving the placebo in the first study phase. These findings underscore the considerable variability in placebo responses observed in trials for canine epilepsy, contrasting with previous limited data. The identified phase effect should be carefully considered in the design and evaluation of canine epilepsy trials to ensure a more accurate assessment of efficacy for new treatments.

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.

Lacosamide extended-release capsules are bioequivalent to lacosamide immediate-release tablets: Pharmacokinetic observations and simulations

OBJECTIVES

Assess the bioequivalence of lacosamide extended-release (XR) capsules and immediate-release (IR) tablets and answer real-world clinical questions regarding the use of lacosamide XR.

METHODS

An open-label, randomized, two-treatment, two-sequence, oral comparative bioavailability study was conducted to assess the bioequivalence of two lacosamide formulations. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive lacosamide XR capsules (400 mg once-daily) or IR tablets (200 mg twice-daily) in 1 of 2 sequences over 7-day periods. Primary outcome was the area under the lacosamide concentration-time curve over 24 h at steady-state (AUC0-τ,ss). Secondary outcomes were maximum (Cmax,ss) and minimum concentrations at steady-state (Cmin,ss). Bioequivalence was established when 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for geometric least square means ratios (GLSMs) were between 80% and 125%. Adverse events (AEs) and other safety outcomes were also assessed. Pharmacokinetic simulations, including adherent and partially adherent dosing scenarios with XR and IR formulations, modeled the clinical use of lacosamide XR.

RESULTS

Thirty-five healthy adult males were enrolled in the bioequivalence study. After 7 days of study drug, mean AUC0-τ,ss, Cmax,ss, and Cmin,ss values were similar between XR and IR formulations; all 90% CIs for GLSMs were between 80% and 125%. AEs were mild and no serious AEs or other clinically significant safety findings were observed. Pharmacokinetic simulations suggested that partial adherence affected formulations similarly; and the best strategy for switching formulations was to take the morning lacosamide IR dose followed by the evening lacosamide XR dose, as this resulted in the most consistent lacosamide plasma concentrations.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily lacosamide XR capsules were bioequivalent to twice-daily lacosamide IR tablets. Pharmacokinetic simulations indicated lacosamide XR and IR formulations were similarly affected by partial adherence, though once-daily dosing with lacosamide XR may offer clinical advantages, and formulations can be easily switched. These results support the use of lacosamide XR capsules as a once-daily alternative to lacosamide IR tablets.

A comparison of cenobamate with other newer antiseizure medications for adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of cenobamate with other newer anti-seizure medications (ASMs) including brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, perampanel, and zonisamide, approved for adjunctive treatment of drug-resistant focal-onset seizures (FOS) in adults with epilepsy.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to obtain relevant efficacy, safety, and tolerability data for ASMs for the treatment of drug-resistant FOS. All studies were thoroughly assessed for potential sources of heterogeneity and analysed via Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMAs). Efficacy outcomes were ≥50 % responder rate and seizure freedom during the maintenance period, which were modelled simultaneously using a multinomial Bayesian NMA. Safety and tolerability outcomes were the proportion of patients who experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and the proportion who experienced at least one TEAE leading to discontinuation.

RESULTS

The SLR identified 76 studies, of which 23 were included in the Bayesian NMAs. Cenobamate was associated with statistically significant higher rates for the ≥50 % responder rate and seizure freedom outcomes compared with all ASMs analysed. The point estimates indicated that cenobamate was associated with higher rates of experiencing at least one TEAE and at least one TEAE leading to discontinuation compared with brivaracetam, lacosamide, and zonisamide; however, no results were statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Cenobamate was associated with increased efficacy compared with all ASMs analysed. There were no statistically significant differences in the safety and tolerability outcomes. The results presented corroborate the conclusions drawn from previous published NMAs, which also highlight the notable efficacy of cenobamate in comparison with other ASMs.

Efficacy, tolerability and safety of add-on third-generation antiseizure medications in treating focal seizures worldwide: a network meta-analysis of randomised, placebo-controlled trials

Background

Adjunctive newer antiseizure medications (ASMs) are being used in patients with treatment-resistant focal-onset seizures (FOS). An updated network meta-analysis (NMA) was necessary to compile evidence in this critical area.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus from their inception until 17 January 2024, evaluating the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of rufinamide (RUF), brivaracetam (BRV), cenobamate (CNB), eslicarbazepine (ESL), lacosamide (LCM), retigabine (RTG), and perampanel (PER) as adjunctive treatments for FOS. Efficacy outcomes included seizure response and seizure freedom. Tolerability was assessed by discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). Safety outcomes were evaluated based on the number of patients experiencing at least one AE and serious adverse events (SAEs). This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023485130).

Findings

A total of 29 studies involving 11,750 participants were included. For seizure response, all ASMs were significantly superior to placebo, with RTG ranking highest, followed by CNB. Considering dosage, CNB 400 mg/d was top-ranked, followed by RTG 1200 mg/d. For seizure freedom, BRV was highest-ranked, followed by CNB, with BRV 100 mg/d leading, followed by CNB 400 mg/d. Regarding tolerability, LCM 600 mg/d had the lowest ranking, followed by CNB 400 mg/d. For the safety outcome of AEs, ESL 1200 mg/d was ranked lowest, followed by CNB 400 mg/d. Regarding SAEs, LCM 400 mg/d was ranked lowest, followed by RTG 1200 mg/d.

Interpretation

ASMs at different dosages have varying efficacy and tolerability profiles. We have provided hierarchical rankings of ASMs for efficacy and safety outcomes. Our findings offer the most comprehensive evidence available to inform patients, families, physicians, guideline developers, and policymakers about the choice of ASMs in patients with treatment-resistant FOS.

Funding

None.

Clinical Analysis of Lacosamide Monotherapy in the Treatment of Self-Limited Epilepsy with Centrotemporal Spikes

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lacosamide (LCM) monotherapy in the treatment of self-limited epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes (SeLECTS).

Methods

In this study, 89 children with SeLECTS who were treated with LCM monotherapy in the Children's Hospital Affiliated to Soochow University from June 2019 to June 2021 were included. Clinical seizures and spike wave index (SWI) on video EEG during slow-wave sleep were evaluated before and after treatment. The role of LCM monotherapy in improving SWI, controlling clinical seizures and improving cognition was analyzed, and corresponding adverse reactions were documented.

Results

There were 52 males and 37 females in this group, with an average age of 7.6 ± 2.1 years. The total effective rate was 93.83% and at 18 months of treatment, the cumulative control rate was 85.19%, the retention rate was 91.01% and the effective rate in terms of EEG spike index was 72.92%, all of which showed a high rate; there was no statistically significant difference in intelligence quotient before and after treatment (P > 0.05). In addition, it was found in the study that the earlier the age of onset, the less obvious the improvement in SWI after LCM treatment; the lower the baseline seizure frequency, the more significant the improvement in SWI after LCM treatment.

Conclusion

LCM monotherapy had curative effect and adverse reactions for SeLECTS, with no negative impact on cognition. These significant findings indicate that LCM is likely to become a widely prescribed ASM for the treatment of SeLECTS. Meanwhile, the onset age and baseline seizure frequency had certain value in judging prognosis and predicting curative effect.

Efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive lacosamide in patients aged <4 years with focal seizures

OBJECTIVE

Primary objective was to evaluate efficacy of lacosamide administered concomitantly with 1-3 antiseizure medications in young children with uncontrolled focal (partial-onset) seizures.

METHODS

Double-blind, parallel-group trial (SP0967: NCT02477839/2013-000717-20) conducted between June 2015 and May 2020 at hospitals and clinics in 25 countries. Patients (aged ≥1 month to <4 years) with uncontrolled focal seizures were randomized 1:1 to adjunctive lacosamide or placebo using an interactive voice/web response system and stratified by age. After a 20-day titration period, patients who reached target-dose range (8-12 mg/kg/day) entered a 7-day maintenance period. Region-specific primary efficacy variables were based on ≤72-h video-electroencephalograms: change in average daily frequency (ADF) of electrographic focal seizures as measured on end-of-maintenance video-electroencephalogram versus end-of-baseline video-electroencephalogram (United States); 50% responder rate (≥50% reduction in ADF of focal seizures) during maintenance (European Union).

RESULTS

In total, 255 patients were randomized (lacosamide/placebo: 128/127) and received ≥1 trial medication dose. Percentage reduction in ADF of focal seizures for lacosamide (116 patients) versus placebo (120 patients) was 3.2% (95% confidence interval = -13.6 to 17.5, p = 0.69). 50% responder rate was 41.4% for lacosamide (116 patients), 37.5% for placebo (120 patients) (p = 0.58). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 44.5% of lacosamide-treated patients (placebo 51.2%).

INTERPRETATION

Adjunctive lacosamide did not show superior efficacy versus placebo in young children with focal seizures. However, efficacy variables were potentially affected by high variability and low reliability between readers in video-electroencephalogram interpretation. Lacosamide was generally well tolerated; safety profile was acceptable and consistent with that in adults and children aged ≥4 years.

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.

Lacosamide dosing in patients receiving continuous renal replacement therapy

BACKGROUND

Lacosamide is one of the anticonvulsants used in critically ill patients. This study aimed to suggest appropriate lacosamide dosing regimens in critically ill patients receiving continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) via Monte Carlo simulations.

METHODS

Mathematical models were created using published demographic and pharmacokinetics in adult critically ill patients. CRRT modalities with different effluent rates were added into the models. Lacosamide regimens were evaluated on the probability of target attainment (PTA) using pharmacodynamic targets of trough concentrations and area under the curve within a range of 5-10 mg/L and 80.25-143 and 143-231 mg*h/L for the initial 72 h-therapy, respectively. Optimal regimens were defined from regimens that yielded the highest PTA. Each dosing regimen was tested in a group of different 10,000 virtual patients.

RESULTS

Our results revealed the optimal lacosamide dosing regimen of 300-450 mg/day is recommended for adult patients receiving both CRRT modalities with 20-25 effluent rates. The dose of 600 mg/day was suggested in higher effluent rate of 35 mL/kg/h. Moreover, a patient with body weight > 100 kg was less likely to attain the targets.

CONCLUSIONS

Volume of distribution, total clearance, CRRT clearance and body weight were significantly contributed to lacosamide dosing. Clinical validation of the finding is strongly indicated.

Quantifying and controlling the impact of regression to the mean on randomized controlled trials in epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in epilepsy for drug treatments are plagued by high costs. One potential remedy is to reduce placebo response via better control over regression to the mean (RTM). Here, RTM represents an initial observed seizure rate higher than the long-term average, which gradually settles closer to the average, resulting in apparent response to treatment. This study used simulation to clarify the relationship between eligibility criteria and RTM.

METHODS

Using a statistically realistic seizure diary simulator, the impact of RTM on placebo response and trial efficacy was explored by varying eligibility criteria for a traditional treatment phase II/III RCT for drug-resistant epilepsy.

RESULTS

When the baseline period was included in the eligibility criteria, increasingly larger fractions of RTM were observed (25%-47% vs. 23%-25%). Higher fractions of RTM corresponded with higher expected placebo responses (50% responder rate [RR50]: 2%-9% vs. 0%-8%) and lower statistical efficacy (RR50: 47%-67% vs. 47%-81%). The exclusion of baseline from eligibility criteria was shown to decrease the number of patients needed by roughly 30%.

SIGNIFICANCE

The manipulation of eligibility criteria for RCTs has a predictable and important impact on RTM, and therefore on placebo response; the difference between drug and placebo was more easily detected. This in turn impacts trial efficacy and therefore cost. This study found dramatic improvements in efficacy and cost when baseline was not included in eligibility.

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 Safety of Five Broad-Spectrum Antiseizure Medications for Adjunctive Treatment of Refractory Epilepsy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Overall, up to one-third of epilepsy patients have drug-resistant epilepsy. However, there was previously no meta-analysis to support the guidelines for broad-spectrum antiseizure medication selection for the adjunctive treatment of refractory epilepsy. In the present meta-analysis, we assessed the efficacy and safety of three second-generation broad-spectrum antiseizure medications, lamotrigine (LTG), levetiracetam (LEV), and topiramate (TPM), and two third-generation broad-spectrum antiseizure medications, perampanel (PER) and lacosamide (LCM), for the adjunctive treatment of refractory epilepsy.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL from inception to July 15, 2022. The studies included in the meta-analysis were required to meet the following criteria: (1) be randomized, double-blind clinical trials; (2) include patients aged >2 years with a clinical diagnosis of drug-resistant epilepsy; (3) have at least 8 weeks for the treatment period excluding the titration phase; and (4) report the outcomes of seizure response, seizure freedom and the withdrawal rate due to treatment-emergent adverse effects. Data were extracted, and the risk of bias for each study was assessed by two authors independently using RoB2 tools. We performed the network meta-analysis for each outcome through a group of programs in the mvmeta and network packages in Stata. Relative odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated as the result of the analyses. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) and mean ranks were used to rank these treatments.

RESULTS

Forty-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (LTG-placebo: n = 6, LEV-placebo: n = 13, TPM-placebo: n = 9, PER-placebo: n = 6, LCM-placebo: n = 7, LEV-TPM: n = 1) with 10257 participants (LTG = 569, LEV = 1626, TPM = 701, PER = 1734, LCM = 1908, placebo = 3719) were included. Levetiracetam had subequal efficacy in 50 % seizure frequency reduction to TPM [odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73-1.38], and LEV had a higher rate of ≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction than LCM (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.11-2.01) and PER (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.24-2.29). Levetiracetam was also related to a higher proportion of seizure freedom participants than TPM (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.20-2.89), PER (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.12-4.43), and LCM (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.46-6.05). In addition, LEV was associated with a lower risk of experiencing at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) than PER (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.46-0.85) and TPM (OR 0.51, 95 % CI 0.36-0.72) and a lower proportion of patients experiencing TEAEs leading to discontinuation than PER (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27-0.97) and TPM (OR 0.50, 95 % CI 0.27-0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

Third-generation drugs (PER and LCM) had no advantages in terms of efficacy and safety for adjunctive treatment of refractory epilepsy compared with several second-generation drugs (LEV and LTG). Levetiracetam was the priority choice for adjunctive treatment of refractory epilepsy. Perampanel and LCM had no advantages in terms of efficacy and safety among the five drugs.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number, CRD42022344153; last edited on December 23, 2022.

Safety of intravenous lacosamide in hospitalized children and neonates

OBJECTIVE

Seizures are common in critically ill children and neonates, and these patients would benefit from intravenous (IV) antiseizure medications with few adverse effects. We aimed to assess the safety profile of IV lacosamide (LCM) among children and neonates.

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter cohort study examined the safety of IV LCM use in 686 children and 28 neonates who received care between January 2009 and February 2020.

RESULTS

Adverse events (AEs) were attributed to LCM in only 1.5% (10 of 686) of children, including rash (n = 3, .4%), somnolence (n = 2, .3%), and bradycardia, prolonged QT interval, pancreatitis, vomiting, and nystagmus (n = 1, .1% each). There were no AEs attributed to LCM in the neonates. Across all 714 pediatric patients, treatment-emergent AEs occurring in >1% of patients included rash, bradycardia, somnolence, tachycardia, vomiting, feeling agitated, cardiac arrest, tachyarrhythmia, low blood pressure, hypertension, decreased appetite, diarrhea, delirium, and gait disturbance. There were no reports of PR interval prolongation or severe cutaneous adverse reactions. When comparing children who received a recommended versus a higher than recommended initial dose of IV LCM, there was a twofold increase in the risk of rash in the higher dose cohort (adjusted incidence rate ratio = 2.11, 95% confidence interval = 1.02-4.38).

SIGNIFICANCE

This large observational study provides novel evidence demonstrating the tolerability of IV LCM in children and neonates.

Time-to-event clinical trial designs: Existing evidence and remaining concerns

Well-designed placebo-controlled clinical trials are critical to the development of novel treatments for epilepsy, but their design has not changed for decades. Patients, clinicians, regulators, and innovators all have concerns that recruiting for trials is challenging, in part, due to the static design of maintaining participants for long periods on add-on placebo when there are an increasing number of options for therapy. A traditional trial maintains participants on blinded treatment for a static period (e.g., 12 weeks of maintenance), during which participants on placebo have an elevated risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy compared to patients on an active treatment. Time-to-event trials observe participants on blinded treatment until a key event occurs (e.g., post-randomization seizure count matches pre-randomization monthly seizure count). In this article, we review the evidence for these designs based on re-analysis of prior trials, one published trial that used a time-to-second seizure design, and experience from an ongoing blinded trial. We also discuss remaining concerns regarding time-to-event trials. We conclude that, despite potential limitations, time-to-event trials are a potential promising mechanism to make trials more patient friendly and reduce placebo exposure, which are urgent needs to improve safety and increase recruitment to trials.

A six-month prospective, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover, dietary trial design to investigate the potential of psychobiotics on seizure semiology and comorbidities in canine epilepsy: study protocol

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is the most common chronic neurological disease in dogs. More than two-thirds of these patients suffer from associated behavioural comorbidities. The latter could have their origin in partially overlapping pathomechanisms, with the intestinal microbiome as a potential key link between them. The current arsenal of drugs for epilepsy management remains limited. Most canine patients continue to have seizures despite treatment and the occurrence of comorbidities is not sufficiently addressed, limiting quality of life of affected dogs and owners. Therefore, novel additional epilepsy management options are urgently needed. The microbiome-gut-brain axis may serve as a new target for the development of innovative multimodal therapeutic approaches to overcome current shortcomings in epilepsy management.

METHODS

A six-month prospective, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover, dietary trial was designed to investigate the potential of the psychobiotic Bifidobacterium longum on behavioural comorbidities in canine epilepsy. Seizure semiology will be evaluated as a secondary outcome measure. Thirty-four privately owned dogs are planned to be included in the ongoing study meeting the following inclusion criteria: Dogs displaying increased anxiety/fear behaviour since the start of the idiopathic epilepsy. Tier II confidence level of the International Veterinary Epilepsy Task Force for the diagnosis of idiopathic epilepsy, with a maximum seizure interval of 3 month and a minimum of three generalised seizures within that period and chronically treated with at least one antiseizure drug without improvement in seizure frequency Each dog will receive the allocated supplement (probiotic vs. placebo) alongside its normal diet for a 3-month period. After a three-week wash out period, the second phase starts by administering the respective other supplement for another 3 months.

DISCUSSION

The current study considers modern high-quality standards for epilepsy medication trials. Common biasing effects should be limited to a possible minimum (regression-to-the mean effect, placebo effect, observer effect), ensuring a high validity and accuracy of the acquired results, thus enabling a representative nature of the efficacy of Bifidobacterium longum as add-on supplement for dogs suffering from epilepsy and its comorbidities. This publication should provide a description of the study procedure and data acquisition methods, including prognosed statistical analysis.

Flexible realistic simulation of seizure occurrence recapitulating statistical properties of seizure diaries

OBJECTIVE

A realistic seizure diary simulator is currently unavailable for many research needs, including clinical trial analysis and evaluation of seizure detection and seizure-forecasting tools. In recent years, important statistical features of seizure diaries have been characterized. These include (1) heterogeneity of individual seizure frequencies, (2) the relation between average seizure rate and standard deviation, (3) multiple risk cycles, (4) seizure clusters, and (5) limitations on inter-seizure intervals. The present study unifies these features into a single model.

METHODS

Our approach, Cyclic Heterogeneous Overdispersed Clustered Open-source L-relationship Adjustable Temporally limited E-diary Simulator (CHOCOLATES) is based on a hierarchical model centered on a gamma Poisson generator with several modifiers. This model accounts for the aforementioned statistical properties. The model was validated by simulating 10 000 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of medication to compare with 23 historical RCTs. Metrics of 50% responder rate (RR50) and median percent change (MPC) were evaluated. We also used CHOCOLATES as input to a seizure-forecasting tool to test the flexibility of the model. We examined the area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for test data with and without cycles and clusters.

RESULTS

The model recapitulated typical findings in 23 historical RCTs without the necessity of introducing an additional "placebo effect." The model produced the following RR50 values: placebo: 17 ± 4%; drug 38 ± 5%; and the following MPC values: placebo: 13 ± 6%; drug 40 ± 4%. These values are similar to historical data: for RR50: placebo, 21 ± 10%, drug: 43 ± 13%; and for MPC: placebo: 17 ± 10%, drug: 41 ± 11%. The seizure forecasts achieved an AUC of 0.68 with cycles and clusters, whereas without them the AUC was 0.51.

SIGNIFICANCE

CHOCOLATES represents the most realistic seizure occurrence simulator to date, based on observations from thousands of patients in different contexts. This tool is open source and flexible, and can be used for many applications, including clinical trial simulation and testing of seizure-forecasting tools.

Lacosamide as the first add-on therapy in adult patients with focal epilepsy: A multicenter real-world study

Background

Prospective observations on the effectiveness, safety, tolerance, and influence of comorbidity of add-on lacosamide (LCM) therapy are still lacking, especially for domestic generic LCM in China.

Objective

In this multicenter real-world study, we aimed to evaluate lacosamide (LCM) as the first add-on therapy in adult Chinese patients with focal epilepsy that had initially been treated with monotherapy.

Methods

A cohort of consecutive focal epilepsy patients aged over 16 years were enrolled and followed at the multi-epilepsy centers in China. LCM was prescribed as the first add-on therapy. The main outcome measures included seizure frequency and response rate. Data on seizure-free rate, retention rate, scales of depression and anxiety, and adverse events were also collected as additional outcome measures.

Results

A total number of 107 adult subjects (60 men, 56.07%) were enrolled. The mean age was 37.16 ± 15.01 years, and the mean age at seizure onset was 312.35 ± 199.97 months. After the LCM add-on therapy, the ≥50% response rates were 76.19, 81.73, 94.12, and 95.79% at the visit at 4 weeks (visit 2), 8 weeks (visit 3), 16 weeks (visit 4), and 24 weeks (visit 5), respectively, compared to the baseline (visit 1). A total of 34 patients (31.78%) had no seizures during the whole follow-up period. The posttreatment emotional performance of the 97 subjects, defined as generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory (NDDI) scores, was significantly better than the baseline one. Only one patient suffered from mild dizziness.

Conclusion

LCM as the first add-on therapy in adult focal epilepsy in China was effective and safe. Further prospective studies with long-term follow-up periods are needed to confirm our present findings.

Clinical trial registration

http://www.chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR2100042485.

Use of lacosamide in children: experience of a tertiary medical care center in Brazil

BACKGROUND

Lacosamide (LCM) is a third-generation anti-seizure drug approved in Europe and the United States, either as a monotherapy or adjunctive therapy, to treat partial-onset seizures in adults, adolescents, and children. In Brazil, LCM is licensed for treatment only in patients older than 16 years of age.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a cohort of children presenting with refractory epilepsy who received LCM as an add-on therapy and observe the response and tolerability to the LCM treatment.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study conducted in a tertiary health care facility, which included 26 children, aged up to 16 years, who presented with refractory epilepsy and received LCM as an add-on treatment. The follow-up visits were scheduled every 3 months until 9 months of treatment with LCM.

RESULTS

After 3 months of LCM administration, in 73.1% of the children, there was a reduction of > 50% in the frequency of seizures, and this clinical improvement was maintained in most patients (73.9%) for the following 9 months. Mild (such as, somnolence and behavioral changes) or severe (seizure worsening) adverse effects were observed in two and three children respectively. Among responders to LCM, there was a higher prevalence of males, fewer concomitant anti-seizure drugs, and lower percentage of patients using sodium channel blockers.

CONCLUSIONS

Lacosamide should be considered as an early treatment option in pediatric patients with refractory epilepsy, mainly focal seizures.

Thalamic neuromodulation for epilepsy: A clinical perspective

Thalamic neuromodulation can be an effective therapeutic option for select patients with medically refractory epilepsy. However, successful outcome depends on several factors, beginning with appropriate patient and thalamic target selection. Among thalamic targets, the anterior (ANT) and centromedian (CeM) nuclei have the greatest clinical evidence for efficacy. However, the place of thalamic neuromodulation in the treatment armamentarium for intractable seizures is at the tail end of a long list of options. It's relative efficacy, if any, in relation to other treatment modalities however, can be inferred. As we will discuss, considerable work remains to be done in optimal targeting of thalamic nuclei, appropriate to the epilepsy syndrome and seizure type of the individual patient, which may change our current understanding of the place of thalamic neuromodulation on a range of treatment modality efficacies. Currently, it appears that ANT DBS is most efficacious for limbic epilepsies whereas CM, for generalized, multifocal (especially frontotemporal) epilepsies. Based on controlled studies, the efficacy of ANT and CeM DBS is roughly in line with other neuromodulatory therapies (i.e. RNS, VNS) when assessed within the cohort of patients for which the therapy is indicated. Much improvement is needed to render thalamic DBS more efficacious, and use of optimal targeting strategies, especially direct targeting, can positively affect outcomes. Thalamic neuromodulation is still in its infancy; however, clinical advances in this therapy are being realized.

New evidence in adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures in adults: a critical appraisal

Anti-seizure medications (ASMs) represent the pillar of the treatment of epilepsy. The rate of drug-resistant epilepsy remained substantially unchanged over time and there is still the need for new and more effective treatment options. Brivaracetam, cenobamate, eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide and perampanel are 'third-generation' ASMs. The aim of this article is to summarize the currently available evidence about the relative efficacy and tolerability of the 'third-generation' ASMs as adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures in adults. So far, no randomized controlled study directly compared these ASMs, and their comparative efficacy and tolerability have been indirectly evaluated by one network meta-analysis. Sixteen trials were included in the network meta-analysis. The efficacy endpoints were the rates of seizure response and seizure freedom, defined as ≥ 50% and 100% reduction in baseline monthly seizure frequency. The tolerability endpoints were the rate of patients who developed any treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and any TEAE leading to drug discontinuation. Cenobamate had the greatest likelihood of being the best option for the ≥ 50% and 100% seizure frequency reduction. Brivaracetam and lacosamide had the greatest likelihood to rank as the best-tolerated treatments for the occurrence of any TEAE and TEAE leading to discontinuation. Although network meta-analyses are not substitutes of direct comparisons, they can provide valuable evidence about the hierarchy of interventions. Additional real-world data can be useful complement to characterize the clinical profile and therapeutic potentialities of third-generation ASMs.

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.

Third-Generation Antiseizure Medications for Adjunctive Treatment of Focal-Onset Seizures in Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Background

Brivaracetam (BRV), cenobamate (CNB), eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), lacosamide (LCM) and perampanel (PER) are antiseizure medications (ASMs) approved for adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures. So far, no randomised controlled trial directly compared the efficacy and safety of these drugs.

Objective

We estimated the comparative efficacy and safety of these ASMs for the treatment of focal-onset seizures in adults with epilepsy using a network meta-analysis (NMA).

Methods

We systematically searched (June week 4, 2021) MEDLINE (accessed by PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov). There were no date limitations or language restrictions. Randomised, double-blinded, controlled, parallel-group, add-on studies that compared oral BRV, CNB, ESL, LCM, and PER versus any comparator over maintenance periods of at least 12 weeks and included adult patients with focal seizures uncontrolled by concomitant ASMs were identified. The efficacy outcomes were the proportions of patients with ≥ 50% and 100% reduction in baseline seizure frequency during the maintenance period. The tolerability outcomes were the proportions of participants who experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and experienced at least one TEAE leading to discontinuation. Effect sizes were estimated by network meta-analyses within a frequentist framework. The hierarchy of competing interventions was established using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).

Results

Sixteen trials (BRV: n = 3, CNB: n = 1, ESL: n = 4, LCM: n = 4, PER: n = 4) were included, overall enrolling 4507 patients randomised to add-on active treatments (BRV = 803, CNB = 221, ESL =9 90, LCM = 1104, and PER = 1389) and 2246 to add-on placebo. Cenobamate was associated with a higher rate of ≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction than BRV [odds ratio (OR) 2.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11–3.66], ESL (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.07–3.48), LCM (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.04–3.32), and PER (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.16–3.70). There was a not statistically significant trend favouring CNB over ESL, LCM and PER for the seizure freedom outcome. Brivaracetam (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44–0.86) and LCM (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40–0.88) were associated with a lower proportion of participants experiencing TEAEs compared to ESL, and patients treated with PER were associated with a higher risk to experience at least one TEAE (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.02–1.96) than BRV. According to SUCRA, CNB had the greatest likelihood of being the best option for the ≥ 50% and 100% seizure frequency reduction, and BRV and LCM had the highest probabilities of being the best-tolerated treatments.

Conclusions

Cenobamate ranked best for efficacy, and BRV and LCM were best tolerated over the other comparators. Although NMAs cannot replace direct comparisons, they may support physicians in clinical decision making.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40265-021-01661-4.

Indirect treatment comparison of cenobamate to other ASMs for the treatment of uncontrolled focal seizures

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy and safety of cenobamate relative to other antiseizure medications (ASMs) has not been evaluated. An indirect treatment comparison (network meta-analysis) was performed to determine if adjunctive cenobamate increases the odds ratio (OR) for ≥50% responder rate or for withdrawals due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) leading to ASM discontinuation versus adjunctive therapy with other ASMs.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (maintenance phase ≥ 12 weeks) assessing adjunctive ASMs in adults with uncontrolled focal seizures. Cenobamate was compared to a group of seven other ASMs, and to subgroups of branded (brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide, and perampanel) and older (lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and topiramate) ASMs at FDA-recommended daily maintenance doses (FDA-RDMD), at all doses, and at maximum and minimum daily doses. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were eligible for analysis. The placebo-adjusted ≥ 50% responder rate for FDA-RDMD of cenobamate was superior (OR 4.200; 95% CI 2.279, 7.742) to FDA-RDMD of all seven assessed (OR 2.202 95% CI 1.915, 2.532; p = 0.044) and branded ASMs (OR 2.148; 95% CI 1.849, 2.494; p = 0.037). There was no significant difference for ≥50% responder rate between FDA-RDMD of cenobamate and FDA-RDMD of older ASMs (OR 2.617; 95% CI 1.767, 3.878; p = 0.202). No significant differences were identified for ≥50% responder rate when comparing all doses and maximum/minimum doses of cenobamate to all seven, branded, and older ASMs. Cenobamate demonstrated comparable TEAE withdrawal rates to all seven ASMs, branded ASMs, and older ASMs across each of the four dose ranges (all p > 0.05).

SIGNIFICANCE

Patients receiving FDA-RDMD of cenobamate were more likely to have ≥50% seizure reduction compared with FDA-RDMD of the seven assessed ASMs and branded ASMs, without an increase in treatment discontinuation due to TEAEs.

Treatment of Focal-Onset Seizures in Children: Should This Be More Etiology-Driven?

To accelerate the process of licensing antiseizure medication (ASM) in children, extrapolation of efficacy data for focal-onset seizures from adults to children ≥2 or ≥4 years of age is now accepted. We summarized the efficacy evidence from randomized, controlled trials that was used to grant approval for the pediatric indication of focal-onset seizures for the different ASMs available in Europe. Data from high-quality randomized, controlled trials in young children are limited, especially on the use of ASMs in monotherapy. Licensure trials are typically focused on seizure type irrespective of etiology or epilepsy syndrome. We elaborate on the importance of etiology- or syndrome-driven research and treatment, illustrating this with examples of childhood epilepsy syndromes characterized by predominantly focal-onset seizures. Some of these syndromes respond well to standard ASMs used for focal-onset seizures, but others would benefit from a more etiology- or syndrome-driven approach. Advances in molecular genetics and neuroimaging have made it possible to reveal the underlying cause of a child's epilepsy and tailor research and treatment. More high-quality randomized, controlled trials based on etiology or syndrome type are needed, including those assessing effects on cognition and behavior. In addition, study designs such as "N-of-1 trials" could elucidate possible new treatment options in rare epilepsies. Broadening incentives currently in place to stimulate the development and marketing of drugs for rare diseases (applicable to some epilepsy syndromes) to more common pediatric epilepsy types and syndromes might be a means to enable high-quality trials, and ultimately allow more evidence-based treatment in children.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Lacosamide as an Adjunctive Treatment in Adults With Refractory Epilepsy

Background: Lacosamide (LCM), a novel AED (antiepileptic drug), was used as an adjunctive treatment in patients with partial-onset seizures or without secondary generalization. However, no meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of LCM as an adjunctive treatment in post-marketing clinical studies.

Aims: To assess the safety and efficacy of LCM as an adjunctive treatment in adults with refractory epilepsy, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world studies were performed.

Methods: All studies were identified from electronic databases. Both RCTs and observational prospective studies were included. Primary outcomes included responder rate, adverse effects (AEs) and withdraw rate. The pooled rates (PR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Publication bias was assessed with Begg's or Egger's tests.

Results: Total 16 studies (3,191 patients) including 5 RCTs and 11 real-word studies were enrolled. The pooled 50% responder rate and seizure-free rate were 48% (95% CI: 0.42, 0.54) and 9% (95% CI: 0.06, 0.11) in all studies, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that the pooled 50% responder rate were 53% (95% CI: 0.44, 0.62) from observational studies and 38% (95% CI: 0.35, 0.42) from RCTs, respectively; the pooled seizure-free rate were 13% (95% CI: 0.09, 0.18) from observational studies and 4% (95% CI: 0.06, 0.11) from RCTs, respectively. Similar incidence of AEs were reported in real-world studies (0.57, 95% CI: 0.43, 0.72) and RCTs (0.59, 95% CI: 0.42–0.76). Finally, a total of 13% (95%CI: 0.09, 0.16) and 13% (95% CI: 0.08, 0.16) of all patients prescribed with LCM was withdrawn in RCTs and real-world studies, respectively, due to the occurrence of AEs. Furthermore, similar to the 50% responder rate, seizure-free rate, incidence of AEs and withdraw rate were reported at 6-month or at least 12-month of LCM adjunction. Publication bias was not detected in these studies.

Conclusions: Our results revealed that LCM adjunctive therapy even with long-term treatment was efficacious and well tolerated in adults with refractory epilepsy.

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.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Clobazam in Adults With Drug-Refractory Epilepsy

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of clobazam as an adjunctive treatment for adults with drug-resistant epilepsy.

METHODS

We performed a single-center, retrospective chart review of patients aged ≥18 years with drug-resistant epilepsy who started clobazam between 2010 and 2018. Included patients had outpatient visits both before and ≥1 month after clobazam initiation. Epilepsy classification, seizure frequency before and after clobazam, duration of clobazam treatment, and adverse effects were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 417 patients met the inclusion criteria. Mean age was 37.5 years, and 54% of patients were female. Patients were on a mean of 2.4 antiepileptic drugs at the time of initiation of clobazam. Epilepsy types were focal (56.8%), Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) (21.1%), generalized (15.1%), and unclassified (7.0%). At the first follow-up visit ≥1 month after clobazam initiation, 50.3% of patients had >50% reduction in seizure frequency, and 20.5% were seizure free. Of the initial cohort, 17.1% were followed >1 year and were seizure free at last follow-up. Response rates did not differ between different epilepsy classifications. Fifty-one percent of patients experienced ≥1 side effect, most commonly lethargy/fatigue (30.7%) or mood changes (10.8%). A total of 178 (42.6%) patients discontinued clobazam, most commonly due to adverse effects (55%).

CONCLUSIONS

Clobazam is effective and safe as a long-term adjunctive therapy for adults with drug-resistant epilepsy; efficacy in off-label use is similar to that in LGS.

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE

This study provides Class IV evidence that clobazam is an effective treatment for adults with drug-resistant epilepsy, independent of epilepsy classification.

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.

Suicidality Risk of Newer Antiseizure Medications: A Meta-analysis

Importance

Most antiseizure medications (ASMs) carry a US Food and Drug Administration-mandated class label warning of increased suicidality risk, based on a meta-analysis comparing suicidality between individuals treated with medications vs placebo in randomized clinical trials done before 2008. ASMs approved since then carry this warning although they were not similarly studied.

Objective

To review all placebo-controlled phase 2 and 3 studies of 10 ASMs approved since 2008 to evaluate the risk of suicidality of these drugs compared with placebo.

Data Sources

Primary publications and secondary safety analyses in PubMed of all phase 2 and 3 randomized placebo-controlled epilepsy trials of ASMs approved since 2008, using keywords epilepsy, antiepileptic drugs, seizures, suicidality, suicidal ideation, and the names of individual drugs.

Study Selection

All phase 2 and 3 randomized clinical trials of adjunctive treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy and their secondary safety analyses.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Articles were reviewed for frequency of suicidality (ideation, attempts, and completed suicides). Mode of suicidality ascertainment included treatment-emergent adverse event reports, Standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities queries for events in prespecified categories including suicidal ideation and behavior, prospective collection of suicidality data as a prespecified safety outcome using the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale, and retrospective evaluation by blinded review using the Columbia-Classification Algorithm of Suicide Assessment. A meta-analysis compared risk for drugs vs placebo of each outcome for all drugs overall and by individual drugs and trials.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Suicidality (total and by ideation), attempts, and completed suicides.

Results

Excluding studies that did not evaluate suicidality (everolimus and fenfluramine) or did not evaluate it prospectively (lacosamide, ezogabine, and clobazam), 5 drugs were analyzed: eslicarbazepine, perampanel, brivaracetam, cannabidiol, and cenobamate. Suicidality was evaluated in 17 randomized clinical trials of these drugs, involving 5996 patients, of whom 4000 patients were treated with ASMs and 1996 with placebo. There was no evidence of increased risk of suicidal ideation (drugs vs placebo overall risk ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.35-1.60) or attempt (risk ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.30-1.87) overall or for any individual drug. Suicidal ideation occurred in 12 of 4000 patients treated with ASMs (0.30%) vs 7 of 1996 patients treated with placebo (0.35%) (P = .74). Three patients treated with ASMs and no patients treated with placebo attempted suicide (P = .22). There were no completed suicides.

Conclusions and Relevance

There is no current evidence that the 5 ASMs evaluated in this study increase suicidality in epilepsy and merit a suicidality class warning.

Cardiac effects of rapid intravenous loading of lacosamide in patients with epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Lacosamide (LCM) is a new antiseizure medication, and intravenous (IV) loading of LCM is recently used against status epilepticus. IV loading of LCM is usually well-tolerated; however, there are concerns about LCM-induced serious adverse cardiac events. This study was aimed at investigating whether rapid IV loading of LCM is associated with adverse cardiac or hemodynamic events in cases of epilepsy emergencies in real-world settings.

METHODS

We reviewed medical records of consecutive adult epilepsy patients who received a single loading dose (400 mg) of IV LCM between January 2019 and December 2020 and included patients who exhibited status epilepticus or acute repetitive seizures. Electrocardiography findings, blood pressure, and heart rate before and after the IV infusion of LCM were collected.

RESULTS

Of the 85 patients included, 32.9 % (28/85 patients) had experienced at least one cardiac adverse event. The most common adverse events were new-onset first-degree atrioventricular block (19 patients) and hypotension (seven patients). Atrial fibrillation and bradycardia developed in two patients and atrial flutter in one. There were significant increases in the mean PR interval (from 169.3 msec to 184.5 msec, P < 0.01) and decreases in the mean heart rate (from 91.7 to 86.9, P = 0.01) after IV loading of LCM. Older age was significantly associated with a higher magnitude of the PR interval difference between before and after IV loading of LCM.

CONCLUSIONS

In cases of epilepsy emergencies, adverse cardiac events commonly developed after IV loading of LCM, although most adverse events were mild in severity or not clinically significant. Elderly patients or patients with underlying cardiac diseases were prone to exhibiting a more prolonged PR interval after IV loading of LCM. Thus, the loading dose of IV LCM should be infused under careful ECG monitoring in these patients.

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

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

Lacosamide add-on therapy for focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Intravenous Lacosamide in Seizure Clusters: Dose and Efficacy

PURPOSE

The objective of our study was to evaluate the relationship between the loading dose and efficacy of lacosamide (LCM), when used in seizure clusters (SCs).

METHODS

A cohort of patients with SC treated with intravenous (IV)-LCM between September 2017 and September 2019 was retrospectively examined. Demographic data, type of seizure emergency, etiology, response rate, previous oral antiepileptic drugs used, total LCM loading dose, and side effects were reviewed.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine cases of epileptic emergencies treated with IV LCM were collected. The mean age was 59.25 years (18-88 years), and the median loading dose was 136.5 mg (100-300 mg) with a response rate in the whole population of 29.2%. Nine patients received a loading dose of 200 to 300 mg, and their response rate was 89%. Common side effects (drowsiness and dizziness) were mild. No electrocardiogram changes or other cardiovascular side effects, or unexpected side effects were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

In adults with SC, a loading dose of IV LCM of 200 mg or more achieved 89% response rate in this cohort. Loading doses of less than 300 mg caused mild side effects only.

Is Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Lacosamide Needed in Patients with Seizures and Epilepsy?

Lacosamide is an antiepileptic drug (AED) that has linear pharmacokinetics, predictable blood concentrations, and few drug interactions, setting it apart from other AEDs that require vigorous therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) such as phenytoin and carbamazepine. However, there have been reports of altered lacosamide pharmacokinetics in some populations. The purpose of this review is to determine whether lacosamide pharmacokinetics are altered in certain patient populations, suggesting the need for TDM. A literature search of Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane trials was conducted on January 3, 2019 (and then updated on September 2, 2019) to search for articles relevant to the TDM or pharmacokinetics of lacosamide. A total of 56 relevant articles were found and included in this review. Dose of lacosamide is linearly correlated with plasma concentrations and efficacy. However, currently there is no well-established reference range. Overall, the recommended reference ranges varied from 2.2 to 20 mg/L. Lacosamide has very few clinically relevant drug-drug interactions; however, there seems to be a significant drug interaction between lacosamide and enzyme-inducer AEDs. Based on available literature, it appears that lacosamide pharmacokinetics may be altered in severe renal dysfunction, in patients on dialysis and with extremes of age. More evidence is currently needed on lacosamide pharmacokinetics in pregnancy and critical illness. While it is not practical to utilize TDM for all patients, TDM may be useful in patients taking enzyme-inducer AEDs, in patients with decreased renal function or on dialysis, and older adults.

Anti-seizure medications and efficacy against focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures: A systematic review with relevance for SUDEP prevention

We conducted a systematic review of anti-seizure medications (ASMs) and their efficacy for the control of focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS). FBTCS, especially when nocturnal, are recognized as one of the major risk factors for Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP). We searched different online databases for all the randomized, double-blinded, and placebo-controlled clinical trials of ASMs that were FDA-approved after 1990 and that reported specifically on the reduction in FBTCS; when possible, this was compared to reduction in focal impaired awareness (FIA) seizures. The ASMs that yielded the most data (3 or more studies) were topiramate (TPM), followed by tiagabine (TGB), brivaracetam (BRV), and lamotrigine (LTG). TPM trials showed a reduction in FBTCS of 44.8% to 100% (4.5-99% over placebo); TGB 21.8% to 46.7% (21.8-61% over placebo); BRV 33.9% to 82.1% (11.6-57.4% over placebo); and LTG 55.2% (20.3-52% over placebo). Promising results, but with data from only one or two studies, were seen with cenobamate (18-59% efficacy above placebo), lacosamide (45.1-78.7%), levetiracetam (40.1-60.3%), oxcarbazepine (58.5-81.5%), and gabapentin (50-53.8%). Higher responses were often seen at higher doses, including at doses above those currently approved by the FDA. Results specific to nocturnal FBTCS were never reported for any ASM. Moreover, complete freedom from FBTCS specifically was very rarely reported, despite its relevance for SUDEP prevention. In conclusion, there are few data specifically comparing the efficacy of ASMs for prevention of FBTCS despite the known strong association of BTCS with SUDEP. This review was our attempt at filling a gap in the literature and calling for universal reporting of data specific to BTC seizure reduction in all future studies, preferably including specific reporting on nocturnal BTCS. This will help enable rational ASM selection to minimize BTC seizures and thereby decrease the risk of SUDEP.

Tolerability of lacosamide rapid dose titration: A randomized, multicenter, prospective, open-label study

OBJECTIVE

Currently recommended dosing of lacosamide often necessitates long titration periods. However, the use of a regimen consisting of initial loading dose of 200 mg followed by a maintenance dose of 200 mg/day in practice suggests tolerability of more rapid titration schedules. We aimed to clarify whether the shortened titration schedule affects tolerability of lacosamide.

METHODS

We evaluated the safety of two rapid titration protocols designed to reach the target dose of 400 mg/day within 1 week, and the conventional weekly titration protocol (reaching the target dose of 400 mg/day in three weeks). The ≥50% responder rate and steady-state plasma concentration of lacosamide were also analyzed. Adverse events were assessed at 1 week and 5 weeks after reaching the target dose.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients with epilepsy were enrolled and evenly distributed to three titration protocols, from which 5 patients were lost to follow-up and excluded from the safety analysis. Discontinuation of lacosamide or dose reductions due to adverse events occurred in 32 patients (46%), of whom a large majority (74%) had experienced adverse events after reaching 400 mg/day, demonstrating apparent dose-dependency. There was no difference in safety outcomes among the three titration groups. Concomitant use of sodium channel blockers significantly increased the risk of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Rapid titration protocols for lacosamide were not associated with an increased risk of adverse events compared to the conventional weekly titration protocol. Uptitration of lacosamide at shorter intervals to an effective target dosage may be feasible in appropriate clinical situations.

Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of weight-based IV loading dose of lacosamide in the ICU

Among the newer antiseizure medications, lacosamide (LCM) has been increasingly used for acute seizures and status epilepticus in intensive care unit (ICU). We reviewed retrospectively weight-based dosing of IV LCM in patients admitted to ICU with acute seizures and status epilepticus. We have analyzed 354/382 patient treated with IV LCM in ICU during the years 2013-2016. Data collected were age, total body weight, body mass index (BMI), loading dose, post-IV infusion LCM blood level, duration of infusion, blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation, mean arterial pressures, and documented initiation of pressor agents during or within in 30 min of infusion. Larger doses >8 mg/kg of IV LCM that can be safely administered in ICU patients produce effective plasma levels of 15-20 μg/ml with relatively constant volume of distribution.

A prospective, multicenter, noninterventional study in Taiwan to evaluate the safety and tolerability of lacosamide as adjunctive therapy for epilepsy in clinical practice

RATIONALE

Lacosamide (LCM) was initially approved in Taiwan in March 2014 for use as adjunctive therapy for focal impaired awareness seizures and secondarily generalized seizures (SGS) in patients with epilepsy ≥16 years of age. The efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive LCM for the treatment of patients with focal seizures have been demonstrated in randomized, placebo-controlled trials. However, the trials do not reflect a flexible dose setting. This study (EP0063) was conducted to assess the safety and tolerability of LCM in real-world clinical practice in Taiwan. Effectiveness of LCM was also assessed as an exploratory objective.

METHODS

EP0063 was a multicenter, prospective, noninterventional study with an expected observation period of 12 months ± 60 days. Eligible patients were ≥16 years of age, had focal impaired awareness seizures and/or SGS (in line with approved indication in Taiwan at the time of the study), were taking at least one concomitant antiseizure medication (ASM), and had at least one seizure in the 3 months before baseline. Patients were prescribed LCM by their treating physician in the course of routine clinical practice. The primary safety variable was treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) spontaneously reported to, or observed by, the treating physician. Based on safety data from previous studies of LCM and known side effects of other ASMs, certain TEAEs (including but not limited to cardiac and electrocardiogram, suicidality, and rash related terms) were analyzed separately. Effectiveness variables included Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) and change in 28-day seizure frequency from baseline to 12 months (or final visit), and freedom from focal seizures.

RESULTS

A total of 171 patients were treated with LCM, of whom 139 (81.3%) completed the study. The Kaplan-Meier estimated 12-month retention was 82.9%. Patients had a mean (standard deviation [SD], range) age of 38.5 (14.0, 16-77) years, and 96 (56.1%) were male. Patients were taking a mean (SD, range) of 2.8 (1.1, 1-6) ASMs at baseline. Mean (SD, range) duration of LCM treatment was 288.7 (111.9, 2-414) days, and the mean (SD, range) daily dosage of LCM was 205.0 (82.7, 50.0-505.2) mg/day. Overall, 95 (55.6%) patients reported at least one TEAE, most commonly dizziness (33 [19.3%] patients). Drug-related TEAEs were reported in 74 (43.3%) patients, and drug-related TEAEs leading to discontinuation of LCM were reported in 14 (8.2%) patients. Two (1.2%) patients died during LCM treatment, which were considered not related to LCM. Two (1.2%) patients had suicidality-related TEAEs; these TEAEs were considered either not related to LCM or the relationship was not recorded. Rash-related TEAEs were reported in five (2.9%) patients (considered LCM-related in two patients). Based on the CGIC, at 12 months (or final visit), 109 (63.7%) patients were considered to have improved, 54 (31.6%) had no change, and the remaining eight (4.7%) were minimally worse. At 12 months (or final visit), the median percentage change in focal seizure frequency was -50.0. During the first 6 months of the study, 21 (12.3%) patients were free from focal seizures; 37 (21.6%) patients were free from focal seizures in the last 6 months of the study; and 14 (8.2%) were free from focal seizures for the full 12 months of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this prospective, noninterventional study suggest that adjunctive LCM was generally safe and well tolerated in this patient group in real-world practice in Taiwan. Effectiveness was also favorable, with more than 60% of patients considered to be improved by their physician at 12 months (or final visit).

New anti-seizure medication for elderly epilepsy patients - a critical narrative review

Introduction: The number of elderly patients with epilepsy is growing in resource rich countries due to demographic changes and increased longevity. Management in these patients is challenging as underlying etiology, co-morbidities, polypharmacy, age-related pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes need to be considered.Areas covered: Lacosamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, brivaracetam, and perampanel have been approved in the USA and Europe for monotherapy and/or adjunctive treatment of seizures in the last few years. The authors review the pharmacological properties and safety profile of these drugs and provide recommendations for their use in in the elderly.Expert opinion: There are only limited data available on more recent antiseizure medications (ASMs). Drugs with a low risk of interaction (lacosamide, brivaracetam) are preferred choices. Once daily formulations (perampanel and eslicarbazepine acetate) have the advantage of increased compliance. Intravenous formulations (brivaracetam and lacosamide) are useful in emergency situations and in patients who have difficulties to swallow. Dose adjustments are necessary for all ASMs used in the elderly with slow titration and lower target doses than in the regulatory trials. The adverse event profile does not significantly differ from that found in the general adult population.

Effectiveness and tolerability of lacosamide as add-on therapy in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy: Results from a prospective, noninterventional study in European clinical practice (VIBES)

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of lacosamide added to one or two antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in the treatment of patients with brain tumor–related epilepsy (BTRE), and to evaluate patients’ global impression of change and quality of life (QoL).

Methods

This was a prospective, multicenter, single‐arm, noninterventional study with a 6‐month observation period (EP0045; NCT02276053). Eligible patients (≥16 years old) had active BTRE secondary to low‐grade glioma (World Health Organization grade 1 and 2) and were receiving treatment with one or two AEDs at baseline. Lacosamide was initiated by the treating physician in the course of routine clinical practice. Primary outcomes were 50% responders (≥50% reduction in focal seizure frequency from baseline) and Patient's Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at month 6. Secondary outcomes included seizure‐free status and Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at month 6, change in QoL (5‐Level EuroQol‐5 Dimension Quality of Life Assessment) and symptom outcomes (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory–Brain Tumor) from baseline to month 6, and Kaplan‐Meier estimated 6‐month retention on lacosamide. Safety variables included adverse drug reactions (ADRs).

Results

Patients were recruited from 24 sites in Europe. Ninety‐three patients received lacosamide (mean [standard deviation] age = 44.5 [14.7] years; 50 [53.8%] male; median baseline focal seizure frequency = five seizures/28 days [range = 1‐280]), of whom 79 (84.9%) completed the study. At 6 months, 66 of 86 (76.7%) patients were 50% responders and 30 of 86 (34.9%) were seizure‐free. Improvements on PGIC were reported by 49 of 76 (64.5%) patients. Based on CGIC, 52 of 81 (64.2%) patients improved. QoL and symptoms outcome measures remained stable. Kaplan‐Meier estimated 6‐month retention rate was 86.0% (N = 93). Fifteen (16.1%) patients reported ADRs; four (4.3%) had ADRs leading to discontinuation (N = 93).

Significance

Results of this prospective, noninterventional study suggest that add‐on lacosamide is effective and generally well tolerated in patients with BTRE.

The impact of lacosamide on mood disorders in adult patients with epilepsy: A systematic review

Mood disorders such as depression and anxiety have a high prevalence in adult patients with epilepsy, and their evaluation is crucial in choosing the most appropriate antiepileptic drug (AED) with regard to side effects, which can account for long-term discontinuation, poor compliance, and ultimately, failure of seizure control. While more evidence is provided for older AEDs on their effect on mood changes, newer AEDs such as lacosamide have not yet been extensively studied. We performed a systematic review of the literature available on the impact of lacosamide on mood in adult patients with epilepsy. A literature search on MEDLINE, COCHRANE, Scielo, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases was performed, and articles where mood scales where specifically reported as primary or secondary outcome measures were included. Articles differed greatly in terms of inclusion criteria, concomitant AEDs, seizure reduction control, and outcome measures. If lacosamide is used as add-on, two studies point towards a beneficial effect on depressive and anxiety symptoms, two studies claim no effects on mood, and one reports a positive effect only in patients with major depressive symptoms at baseline. Additional evidence from either retrospective or comparative drug studies indicates no effects of lacosamide on mood. Even though presently, a negative effect on mood seems unlikely, whether lacosamide could exert a beneficial impact on mood remains controversial. Multicenter, randomized, controlled, double-blind studies are needed to assess the impact on lacosamide on mood disorders, given the low evidence level (Class III and IV) of currently available studies.

Efficacy and safety of adjunctive lacosamide in the treatment of primary generalised tonic-clonic seizures: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate efficacy and safety of lacosamide (up to 12 mg/kg/day or 400 mg/day) as adjunctive treatment for uncontrolled primary generalised tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS) in patients (≥4 years) with idiopathic generalised epilepsy (IGE).

METHODS

Phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial (SP0982; NCT02408523) in patients with IGE and PGTCS taking 1-3 concomitant antiepileptic drugs. Primary outcome was time to second PGTCS during 24-week treatment.

RESULTS

242 patients were randomised and received ≥1 dose of trial medication (lacosamide/placebo: n=121/n=121). Patients (mean age: 27.7 years; 58.7% female) had a history of generalised-onset seizures (tonic-clonic 99.6%; myoclonic 38.8%; absence 37.2%). Median treatment duration with lacosamide/placebo was 143/65 days. Risk of developing a second PGTCS during 24-week treatment was significantly lower with lacosamide than placebo (Kaplan-Meier survival estimates 55.27%/33.37%; HR 0.540, 95% CI 0.377 to 0.774; p<0.001; n=118/n=121). Median time to second PGTCS could not be estimated for lacosamide (>50% of patients did not experience a second PGTCS) and was 77.0 days for placebo. Kaplan-Meier estimated freedom from PGTCS at end of the 24-week treatment period (day 166) for lacosamide/placebo was 31.3%/17.2% (difference 14.1%; p=0.011). More patients on lacosamide than placebo had ≥50% (68.1%/46.3%) or ≥75% (57.1%/36.4%) reduction from baseline in PGTCS frequency/28 days, or observed freedom from PGTCS during treatment (27.5%/13.2%) (n=119/n=121). 96/121 (79.3%) patients on lacosamide had treatment-emergent adverse events (placebo 79/121 (65.3%)), most commonly dizziness (23.1%), somnolence (16.5%), headache (14.0%). No patients died during the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Lacosamide was efficacious and generally safe as adjunctive treatment for uncontrolled PGTCS in patients with IGE.

Randomized phase 2 study of adjunctive cenobamate in patients with uncontrolled focal seizures

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive cenobamate 200 mg/d in patients with uncontrolled focal (partial-onset) seizures despite treatment with 1 to 3 antiepileptic drugs.

Methods

In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, adults 18 to 65 years of age with focal seizures were randomized 1:1 (cenobamate:placebo) after an 8-week baseline period. The 12-week double-blind treatment period consisted of a 6-week titration phase and a 6-week maintenance phase. The primary outcome was percent change in seizure frequency (from baseline) per 28 days during double-blind treatment.

Results

Two hundred twenty-two patients were randomized; 113 received cenobamate and 109 received placebo; and 90.3% and 90.8% of patients, respectively, completed double-blind treatment. Median baseline seizure frequency was 6.5 in 28 days (range 0–237). Compared to placebo, cenobamate conferred a greater median percent seizure reduction (55.6% vs 21.5%; p < 0.0001) The responder rate (≥50% reduction in seizure frequency) was 50.4% for cenobamate and 22.2% for placebo (p < 0.0001). Focal seizures with motor component, impaired awareness, and focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures were significantly reduced with cenobamate vs placebo. During maintenance, 28.3% of cenobamate-treated and 8.8% of placebo-treated patients were seizure-free. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported in >10% in either group (cenobamate vs placebo) were somnolence (22.1% vs 11.9%), dizziness (22.1% vs 16.5%), headache (12.4% vs 12.8%), nausea (11.5% vs 4.6%), and fatigue (10.6% vs 6.4%).

Conclusion

Adjunctive treatment with cenobamate 200 mg/d significantly improved seizure control in adults with uncontrolled focal seizures and was well tolerated.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier

NCT01397968.

Classification of evidence

This study provides Class I evidence that, for patients with uncontrolled focal seizures, adjunctive cenobamate reduces seizures.

Natural variability in seizure frequency: Implications for trials and placebo

BACKGROUND

Changes in patient-reported seizure frequencies are the gold standard used to test efficacy of new treatments in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Recent analyses of patient seizure diary data suggest that the placebo response may be attributable to natural fluctuations in seizure frequency, though the evidence is incomplete. Here we develop a data-driven statistical model and assess the impact of the model on interpretation of placebo response.

METHODS

A synthetic seizure diary generator matching statistical properties seen across multiple epilepsy diary datasets was constructed. The model was used to simulate the placebo arm of 5000 RCTs. A meta-analysis of 23 historical RCTs was compared to the simulations.

RESULTS

The placebo 50 %-responder rate (RR50) was 27.3 ± 3.6 % (simulated) and 21.1 ± 10.0 % (historical). The placebo median percent change (MPC) was 22.0 ± 6.0 % (simulated) and 16.7 ± 10.3 % (historical).

CONCLUSIONS

A statistical model of daily seizure count generation which incorporates quantities related to the natural fluctuations of seizure count data produces a placebo response comparable to those seen in historical RCTs. This model may be useful in better understanding the seizure count fluctuations seen in patients in other clinical settings.

Lacosamide in the general population and in people with intellectual disability: Similar responses?

PURPOSE

Epilepsy prevalence is significantly higher in people with Intellectual Disability (ID) compared to people with epilepsy (PWE) from the general population. Increased psychological and behavioural problems, healthcare costs, morbidity, mortality and treatment resistance to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is associated with epilepsy in ID populations. Prescribing AEDs for PWE and ID is challenging and influenced heavily by studies conducted with the general population. Our study compares Lacosamide (LCM) response for the ID population to those from the general population; using data from an UK based epilepsy database register (EP ID/PDD AED Register).

METHODS

Pooled retrospective case notes data for PWE prescribed LCM at 11 UK NHS Trusts were analysed. Participants were classified as per WHO guidance into groups of moderate-profound ID, mild ID and General population. Demographics, concomitant AEDs, starting and maximum dosage, exposure length, adverse effects, dropout rates, seizure frequency were collected. Group differences were reported as odds ratios estimated from univariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Of 232 consented participants, 156 were from the general population and 76 had ID (24 mild, 52 moderate-profound). Twelve month withdrawal rates and reasons, efficacy, side-effects, start and maximum doses were similar between the groups. Dose titration between baseline and three months was significantly slower in the ID group (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

There were no differences for LCM outcomes between general and ID groups. Slower LCM titration in ID populations in the first 3 months was associated with higher retention and lower behavioural side effects as compared to similar European studies.

Racial variations in lacosamide serum concentrations in adult patients with epilepsy

Lacosamide (LCM) is a third-generation anti-epileptic drug (AED) for partial-onset epilepsy with minimal hepatic metabolism and drug-drug interactions. The impact of individual patient variables such as race on drug metabolism have been under-reported in AEDs and LCM has not been specifically investigated. Our aim was to assess the role race plays on serum LCM levels in the management of epilepsy. Thus, we retrospectively reviewed patients with focal seizures who received LCM and had LCM levels as part of their routine clinical care in our Level IV Epilepsy Center. Variables including age, race, gender, LCM serum levels, LCM daily dose, and concomitant AEDs were collected and analyzed. A total of 93 patients with 1-3 clinic visits yielded 122 LCM serum levels. African Americans (AA) comprised 62.3% of our serum samples. Daily LCM doses averaged 350 mg/day (range 50-1000 mg/day). Eighty-nine percent of patients took 1-2 other AEDs. Overall, AA patients had lower LCM levels (mean 6.8 μg/mL) compared to White patients (mean of 7.1 μg/mL) (p = .017) even when considering for the daily dose effect (p = .007). Analysis of co-variables did not have significant effect on LCM levels. Overall, AA patients had a weaker relationship between LCM daily dose (adjusted for weight) and serum levels as compared to White patients and require a higher LCM dose per weight to achieve similar levels. Differences in pharmacogenetics may play an important role in these findings and focus on how these variations impact seizure burden.

Efficacy upon 12-weeks after achievement of maximal dose and tolerability of lacosamide as an adjunctive therapy in epilepsy: Real world clinical experience

Lacosamide (LCM) is a new generation antiepileptic drug. It has only been available in Asia in recent years. A retrospective study at two hospitals in Hong Kong was performed to investigate the post-marketing efficacy and tolerability of the drug. A total of 81 subjects were recruited, among which 88% had drug-resistant epilepsy. The most common type of epilepsy was focal with unknown etiology. All patients used LCM as adjunctive therapy. The 50% responder rate was 42% at 12 weeks after achievement of maximal dose of LCM. No specific factor correlated with responsiveness including concomitant enzyme-inducing or sodium channel blocking anticonvulsants. Withdrawal rate within first 12 weeks after drug initiation was 14% while that at any time upon follow-up was 23%. Two cases of uncommon adverse reaction of myoclonus were also reported. The mechanism was postulated to be the sodium channel inhibiting action of LCM. Our study has shown LCM to have comparable efficacy and tolerability in post-marketing experience when compared with the landmark randomized controlled trials.

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.