Long-term safety and efficacy in patients with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures treated with adjunctive lacosamide: results from a Phase III open-label extension trial

A case of lacosamide and mirtazapine self-poisoning

Lacosamide is a relatively new antiepileptic drug that exerts its anticonvulsant effect by selectively inactivating sodium channels. Since its launch, it has been used widely for the treatment of intractable epilepsy, but there are scant data on the toxic or lethal blood concentrations. Here, we report a case of drug poisoning following simultaneous high-dose self-administration of lacosamide and mirtazapine. We developed and validated an approach that uses liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray ionization-tandem mass spectrometry to determine the concentrations of lacosamide and mirtazapine in cadaveric blood, urine and liver. Calibration curves showed good linearity (r2 > 0.995), and our method enabled repeatable and accurate quantification, with intra- and inter-assay coefficients of variation not exceeding 10.9 % and 12.8 %, respectively, for each target drug. We used the method to measure the drug concentrations in the blood of a dead victim and found a lacosamide concentration of 91.9 μg/mL and a mirtazapine concentration of 12.0 μg/mL. The blood mirtazapine concentration was in the lethal range, and that of lacosamide was about 10 times the therapeutic range. The synergistically central nervous system depressive and cardiotoxic effects of these drugs may have contributed to the cause of death. We concluded that the cause of death in this case was lacosamide and mirtazapine poisoning.

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.

Sustainability of seizure reduction and seizure control with adjunctive cenobamate: Post hoc analysis of a phase 3, open-label study

OBJECTIVE

In this post hoc analysis of a subset of patients from a long-term, open-label phase 3 study, we assessed ≥50%, ≥75%, ≥90%, and 100% seizure reduction and sustainability of these responses with cenobamate using a time-to-event analytical approach.

METHODS

Of 240 patients with uncontrolled focal seizures who had adequate seizure data available, 214 completed the 12-week titration phase and received ≥1 dose of cenobamate in the maintenance phase (max dose 400 mg/day) and were included in this post hoc analysis. Among patients who met an initial given seizure-reduction level (≥50%, ≥75%, ≥90%, or 100%), sustainability of that response was measured using a time-to-event methodology. An event was defined as the occurrence of a study visit at which the seizure frequency during the interval since the prior study visit exceeded the initially attained reduction level. Study visits during the maintenance phase occurred at 3-month intervals.

RESULTS

Of the 214 patients analyzed, 188 (88%), 177 (83%), 160 (75%), and 145 (68%) met ≥50%, ≥75%, ≥90%, and 100% seizure-reduction responses, respectively, for at least one study visit interval during the maintenance phase. The median (95% confidence interval [CI]) time to first visit without a ≥50% seizure reduction was not reached by 30 months of follow-up (53% of patients maintained their initial ≥50% seizure reduction). Median (95% CI) time to first visit without sustaining the initial ≥75%, ≥90%, or 100% seizure reduction was 13.0 (7.5-21.9) months, 7.5 (5.4-11.6) months, and 7.0 (5.3-10.4) months, respectively. Among the 145 patients who had 100% seizure reduction during at least one study visit, 22% remained seizure-free for at least 30 months and 63% had ≤3 study visits with seizures.

SIGNIFICANCE

Adjunctive treatment with cenobamate led to sustained seizure reductions during the maintenance phase of the phase 3 safety study.

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.

The therapeutic effects of lacosamide on epilepsy-associated comorbidities

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

An economic evaluation of vagus nerve stimulation as an adjunctive treatment to anti-seizure medications for the treatment of drug resistant epilepsy in the United States

INTRODUCTION

People with recurrent epileptic seizures are typically treated with anti-seizure medications (ASMs). Around a third of epilepsy patients fail to achieve an adequate response to ASMs and may be eligible to receive vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy for their drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) if they are unsuited to surgery. VNS received approval from the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration agency. However, there has to date been no comprehensive cost effectiveness evaluation of VNS within the US setting. This study was designed, using a US Medicare perspective, to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with VNS as an adjunct to ongoing ASM therapy, compared to ASMs alone.

METHODS

We developed a cohort state transition model in Microsoft Excel, with four health states defined by different percentage reductions in seizure frequency, with a 3-month cycle and transition probabilities derived from published clinical trials and registry data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to understand the impact of parameter uncertainty. Costs included the VNS device, placement, programming, battery changes, and removal; ASM therapy; adverse events associated with VNS (dyspnea, hoarseness, and cough); and costs associated with seizure burden (i.e. hospitalizations, emergency department visits, neurologist visits).

RESULTS

Under base case assumptions, treatment with VNS was associated with a 0.385 QALY gain and a $109,678 saving per patient, when compared with ASM therapy alone. The incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) was $128,903 at a threshold of $50,000 per QALY, with the positive iNMB indicating that VNS is a highly cost effective treatment. This result is explained by the modeled reduction in relative seizure frequency and associated reduction in healthcare resource use that the VNS group experienced. Sensitivity analyses supported this conclusion.

CONCLUSIONS

VNS was evaluated as a cost effective addition to the current standard of care in the treatment of DRE in the US Medicare context.

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.

Lacosamide Intoxication-induced Wide QRS Tachycardia Successfully Treated with Veno-arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Lacosamide is an antiepileptic drug that acts on voltage-gated sodium channels and was approved as an antiepileptic by the Food and Drug Administration in 2008. Although the efficacy and safety of lacosamide have been established in many previous trials, some case reports have shown that it may lead to cardiovascular side effects, especially in patients with electrical conduction system disorders. We herein report a case of life-threatening cardiac arrhythmia caused by lacosamide intoxication that was successfully treated with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

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

Movement disorders associated with antiseizure medications: A systematic review

New-onset movement disorders have been frequently reported in association with the use of antiseizure medications (ASMs). The frequency of specific motor manifestations and the spectrum of their semiology for various ASMs have not been well characterized. We carried out a systematic review of literature and conducted a search on CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Scopus from inception to April 2021. We compiled the data for all currently available ASMs using the conventional terminology of movement disorders. Among 5123 manuscripts identified by the search, 437 met the inclusion criteria. The largest number of reports of abnormal movements were in association with phenobarbital, valproic acid, lacosamide, and perampanel, and predominantly included tremor and ataxia. The majority of attempted interventions for all agents were discontinuation of the offending drug or dose reduction which led to the resolution of symptoms in most patients. Familiarity with the movement disorder phenomenology previously encountered in relation with specific ASMs facilitates early recognition of adverse effects and timely institution of targeted interventions.

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.

Efficacy of cenobamate for uncontrolled focal seizures: Post hoc analysis of a Phase 3, multicenter, open-label study

Objective

To report long‐term post hoc efficacy and safety data from 10 US study sites from an open‐label Phase 3 study of adjunctive cenobamate (NCT02535091).

Methods

Patients with uncontrolled focal seizures taking stable doses of 1–3 antiseizure medications (ASMs) were administered increasing daily doses of cenobamate (12.5, 25, 50, 100, 150, 200 mg/day) over 12 weeks at 2‐week intervals (target dose = 200 mg/day). Further increases to 400 mg/day by 50‐mg/day increments biweekly were allowed during the maintenance phase. Dose adjustments of cenobamate and concomitant ASMs were allowed. Data were assessed until the last clinic visit on or after September 1, 2019.

Results

Of 255 patients, 240 with focal aware motor, focal impaired awareness, or focal to bilateral tonic–clonic seizure data while on treatment were evaluated (median [maximum] exposure = 30.2 [43.0] months across the entire study). Median baseline seizure frequency/28 days was 2.8 (mean = 18.1). Of the 240 patients, 177 (73.8%) were continuing cenobamate treatment at data cutoff. The ≥50% responder rate for the total treatment duration was 71.7% (172/240). During titration, the ≥50% responder rates were 48.1% during Weeks 1–4 (12.5–25 mg/day cenobamate) and 61.7% during Weeks 5–8 (50–100 mg/day cenobamate). Among all patients who received a dose of cenobamate in the maintenance phase (n = 214), 13.1% (28/214) and 40.2% (86/214) achieved 100% and ≥90% seizure reduction during their entire maintenance treatment duration (median = 29.5 months). Among all patients, 87 (36.3%) had any consecutive ≥12‐month duration of 100% seizure reduction. Common treatment‐emergent adverse events among all 240 patients included fatigue (34.6%), dizziness (32.1%), and somnolence (29.6%).

Significance

This post hoc analysis of a subset of patients from the long‐term open‐label study showed high rates of sustained 100% and ≥90% seizure reduction, with many achieving response early during titration. These findings suggest durable seizure frequency reduction with cenobamate in adults with uncontrolled focal seizures.

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.

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-induced sinus node dysfunction followed by severe agranulocytosis

Background

Lacosamide (LCM) is the antiepileptic drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2008 that facilitates slow activation of the voltage-gated sodium channels. Neutropenia and cardiac events including sinus node dysfunction (SND) and atrioventricular block have been previously reported as adverse effects of LCM. To date, there have been no reports of severe agranulocytosis resulting in death associated with LCM. Additionally, there have been no reports of concomitant SND and agranulocytosis after LCM administration. Herein we report the first case of LCM-induced severe SND followed by agranulocytosis.

Case presentation

The patient with focal epilepsy was initiated on LCM 100 mg/day and the dose was increased to 200 mg/day on the 9^th hospital day. Severe SND developed on the 10^th hospital day and LCM was discontinued. Thereafter agranulocytosis appeared on the 11^th hospital day, and the patient died from septic shock on the 15^th hospital day.

Conclusions

This case illustrates the need for careful follow-up of the electrocardiogram and the complete blood cell counts when initiating LCM. Moreover, it should be noticed that various side effects may occur simultaneously in the early period of LCM use, even for a short time and at low dosages.

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).

Genomic and clinical predictors of lacosamide response in refractory epilepsies

OBJECTIVE

Clinical and genetic predictors of response to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are largely unknown. We examined predictors of lacosamide response in a real-world clinical setting.

METHODS

We tested the association of clinical predictors with treatment response using regression modeling in a cohort of people with refractory epilepsy. Genetic assessment for lacosamide response was conducted via genome-wide association studies and exome studies, comprising 281 candidate genes.

RESULTS

Most patients (479/483) were treated with LCM in addition to other AEDs. Our results corroborate previous findings that patients with refractory genetic generalized epilepsy (GGE) may respond to treatment with LCM. No clear clinical predictors were identified. We then compared 73 lacosamide responders, defined as those experiencing greater than 75% seizure reduction or seizure freedom, to 495 nonresponders (<25% seizure reduction). No variants reached the genome-wide significance threshold in our case-control analysis.

SIGNIFICANCE

No genetic predictor of lacosamide response was identified. Patients with refractory GGE might benefit from treatment with lacosamide.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

SIGNIFICANCE

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

Lacosamide: a Study of Exposures Reported to US Poison Centers over a 9-Year Period

BACKGROUND

Lacosamide (Vimpat®) is an anticonvulsant used to treat partial-onset seizures. Little is known about the characteristics and outcomes of patients exposed to lacosamide.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize lacosamide exposures reported to US poison centers with regard to patient demographics, clinical effects, and outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study queried the National Poison Data System (NPDS) for single substance lacosamide exposures from January 2008 to December 2016. Variables of interest included age, gender, medical outcome, management site, level of healthcare facility, reason for exposure, and clinical effects.

RESULTS

Lacosamide exposures were identified in 1124 patients, ranging from ages 2 months to 99 years. Six hundred and twenty-two patients (55.3%) were female. Nine hundred and seventy-six patients (86.8%) had minimal or no toxic effects. Life-threatening exposures numbered 30 cases (2.7%). There was one death. Five hundred and forty-eight patients (48.8%) did not require healthcare management while 537 (47.7%) were either referred to or already at a hospital. Among those treated at a healthcare facility, 269 (50.1%) did not require admission. Thirty-three patients (6.1%) were admitted to a psychiatric facility, 68 (12.7%) to a non-critical care unit, and 93 (17.3%) to a critical care unit. Six hundred and thirty-two exposures (56.2%) were due to therapeutic error. Suicide attempts numbered 168 (14.9%). Neurologic, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular symptoms were commonly encountered.

CONCLUSION

Lacosamide exposures infrequently cause death or disability; however, a considerable proportion of the study population required intensive care. Exposed patients with symptoms require healthcare evaluation.

Lacosamide: A Review in Focal-Onset Seizures in Patients with Epilepsy

Lacosamide (Vimpat^®) is a functionalized amino acid (available orally and intravenously) approved in the EU and the USA for use as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy for the treatment of focal-onset seizures in adults, adolescents and children aged ≥ 4 years with epilepsy. In adults and adolescents (aged ≥ 16 years), oral lacosamide as adjunctive therapy to other antiepileptic drugs was generally effective in reducing seizure frequency during short-term (up to 18 weeks) treatment, with efficacy sustained over the longer-term (up to 8 years). Moreover, patients were effectively switched from adjunctive oral lacosamide to the same dosage of intravenous lacosamide. Oral lacosamide was an effective conversion to monotherapy agent in this patient population and as monotherapy demonstrated noninferiority to carbamazepine controlled release in terms of seizure freedom. Antiepileptic benefits were maintained during longer-term (≤ 2 years) monotherapy. The antiepileptic efficacy of lacosamide in children aged ≥ 4 years has been extrapolated from data from adults and adolescents, with a similar response expected provided paediatric dosage adaptations are used and safety is demonstrated. Indeed, preliminary data demonstrated the efficacy of short-term (16 weeks) adjunctive lacosamide in patients aged ≥ 4 to < 17 years. Oral lacosamide was generally well tolerated over the short- and longer-term when administered as adjunctive therapy, a conversion to monotherapy agent and monotherapy in adults and adolescents and when administered as adjunctive therapy in children aged ≥ 4 years. Thus, lacosamide is a useful option for the management of focal-onset seizures across a broad age range, starting as early as 4 years of age.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

SIGNIFICANCE

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

Efficacy and tolerability of adjuvant lacosamide: The role of clinical characteristics and mechanisms of action of concomitant AEDs

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to analyze the effectiveness and long-term tolerability of adjuvant lacosamide (LCM) in a multicenter cohort. We aim to assess outcomes of LCM-containing antiepileptic drug (AED) combinations based upon 'mechanism of action' (MoA) and patient's clinical features.

METHODS

Consecutive patients commenced on LCM, with focal epilepsy were identified from three Australian hospitals. The 12-month efficacy endpoints were greater than 50% reduction in seizure frequency (responders) and seizure freedom. Tolerability endpoints were cessation of LCM for any reason, cessation due to side-effects and censoring due to inefficacy. Outcomes were assessed according to concomitant AEDs according to their MoA and the clinical risk factor profile.

RESULTS

Three hundred ten patients were analyzed and followed for median 17.3months. Two hundred ninety-nine (97%) had drug-resistant epilepsy, and 155 (50%) had tried more than 7 AEDs at LCM commencement. Adjuvant LCM was associated with responder and seizure freedom rate of 29% and 9% respectively at 12months. Lower baseline seizure frequency, a prior 6-month period of seizure freedom at any time since epilepsy diagnosis and being on fewer concomitant AEDs were predictive of 12-month seizure freedom. Previous focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), lower baseline seizure frequency, and concomitant AED reduction after LCM commencement were associated with improved LCM tolerability. No specific MoA AED combinations offered any efficacy or tolerability advantage.

SIGNIFICANCE

Adjuvant LCM is associated with seizure freedom rates of 9% at 12months after commencement and is predicted by lower prior seizure frequency, a period of 6months or longer of seizure freedom since diagnosis and fewer concomitant AEDs. While the broad MoA of concomitant AEDs did not influence efficacy or tolerability outcomes, we have provided a framework that may be utilized in future studies to help identify optimal synergistic AED combinations.

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

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

The Pharmacology and Toxicology of Third-Generation Anticonvulsant Drugs

Epilepsy is a neurologic disorder affecting approximately 50 million people worldwide, or about 0.7% of the population [1]. Thus, the use of anticonvulsant drugs in the treatment of epilepsy is common and widespread. There are three generations of anticonvulsant drugs, categorized by the year in which they were developed and released. The aim of this review is to discuss the pharmacokinetics, drug-drug interactions, and adverse events of the third generation of anticonvulsant drugs. Where available, overdose data will be included. The pharmacokinetic properties of third-generation anticonvulsant drugs include relatively fewer drug-drug interactions, as well as several unique and life-threatening adverse events. Overdose data are limited, so thorough review of adverse events and knowledge of drug mechanism will guide expectant management of future overdose cases. Reporting of these cases as they occur will be necessary to further clarify toxicity of these drugs.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Lacosamide in status epilepticus: Systematic review of current evidence

OBJECTIVE

The intravenous formulation of lacosamide (LCM) and its good overall tolerability and safety favor the use in status epilepticus (SE). The aim of this systematic review was to identify and evaluate studies reporting on the use of LCM in SE.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of electronic databases using a combined search strategy from 2008 until October 2016. Using a standardized assessment form, information on the study design, methodologic framework, data sources, efficacy, and adverse events attributed to LCM were extracted from each publication and systematically reported.

RESULTS

In total, 522 SE episodes (51.7% female) in 486 adults and 36 children and adolescents were evaluated with an overall LCM efficacy of 57%. Efficacy was comparable between use in nonconvulsive (57%; 82/145) and generalized-convulsive (61%; 30/49; p = 0.68) SE, whereas overall success rate was better in focal motor SE (92%; 34/39, p = 0.013; p < 0.001). The efficacy with later positioning of LCM decreased from 100% to 20%. The main adverse events during treatment of SE are dizziness, abnormal vision, diplopia, and ataxia. Overall, lacosamide is well tolerated and has no clinically relevant drug-drug interactions.

SIGNIFICANCE

The available data regarding the use of LCM in SE are promising, with a success rate of 57%. The strength of LCM is the lack of interaction potential and the option for intravenous use in emergency situations requiring rapid uptitration.

The efficacy of lacosamide as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy in focal epilepsy and its use in status epilepticus: clinical trial evidence and experience

Lacosamide (LCM) is approved for anticonvulsive treatment in focal epilepsy and exhibits its function through the slow inactivation of voltage-gated sodium channels (VGSCs). LCM shows comparable efficacy with other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) licensed in the last decade: in three randomized placebo-controlled trials, significant median seizure reduction rates of 35.2% for 200 mg/day, 36.4-39% for 400 mg/day and 37.8-40% for 600 mg/day were reported. Likewise, 50% responder rates were 38.3-41.1% for 400 mg/day and 38.1-41.2% for 600 mg/day. Similar rates were reported in post-marketing studies. The main adverse events (AEs) are dizziness, abnormal vision, diplopia and ataxia. Overall, LCM is well tolerated and has no clinically-relevant drug-drug interactions. Due to the drug's intravenous availability, its use in status epilepticus (SE) is increasing, and the available data are promising.

[Russian experience of lacosamide (vimpat) usage in treatment of uncontrolled focal epilepsy]

Many patients with epilepsy receive treatment in polytherapy. Selection of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for the combination should be carried out in accordance with the principles of rational polytherapy, taking into account the mechanism of action, pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) properties of drugs. Along with levetiracetam, gabapentin, vigabatrin and pregabalin, lacosamide (LCM) shows superior PK profile in rating of all AED and can be combined with any of them. The goal of this study was to evaluate efficacy and tolerability of LCM in patients with uncontrolled partial onset seizures (POS) in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

181 patient's charts from 14 sites in Russia have been analyzed in retrospective manner. Patients 16 years old and older with POS with or without secondary generalization were included. Documented observation period of up to 12 months after initiation or until discontinuation of LCM therapy. Primary effectiveness variables was retention at Observational Point 3 (approximately 12 months). Other variables were: percentage change from historical baseline in seizure frequency, 50% and 75% treatment response and seizure-free status at the Observational Points 1, 2 and 3 (approximately 3, 6 and 12 months) and incidence and reason of treatment discontinuation.

RESULTS

retention rate was high with 89.5% after 12-month observation. The development of seizure frequency showed a continuous decrease in terms of 50%, 75% treatment respond rates and seizure free status. A total of 5 adverse drug reactions leading to discontinuation of LCM therapy were recorded in 5 of 181 patients (2.8%) during the observation period. The high retention rate observed in this retrospective chart review is assumed to indicate a good tolerability and effectiveness of an adjunctive LCM treatment in patients with uncontrolled partial epilepsy in Russia.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of lacosamide monotherapy versus controlled-release carbamazepine in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy: a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Further options for monotherapy are needed to treat newly diagnosed epilepsy in adults. We assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of lacosamide as a first-line monotherapy option for these patients.

METHODS

In this phase 3, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial, patients from 185 epilepsy or general neurology centres in Europe, North America, and the Asia Pacific region, aged 16 years or older and with newly diagnosed epilepsy were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio, via a computer-generated code, to receive lacosamide monotherapy or controlled-release carbamazepine (carbamazepine-CR) twice daily. Patients, investigators, and trial personnel were masked to treatment allocation. From starting doses of 100 mg/day lacosamide or 200 mg/day carbamazepine-CR, uptitration to the first target level of 200 mg/day and 400 mg/day, respectively, took place over 2 weeks. After a 1-week stabilisation period, patients entered a 6-month assessment period. If a seizure occurred, the dose was titrated to the next target level (400 or 600 mg/day for lacosamide and 800 or 1200 mg/day for carbamazepine-CR) over 2 weeks with a 1-week stabilisation period, and the 6-month assessment period began again. Patients who completed 6 months of treatment and remained seizure-free entered a 6-month maintenance period on the same dose. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients remaining free from seizures for 6 consecutive months after stabilisation at the last assessed dose. The predefined non-inferiority criteria were -12% absolute and -20% relative difference between treatment groups. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01243177.

FINDINGS

The trial was done between April 27, 2011, and Aug 7, 2015. 888 patients were randomly assigned treatment. 444 patients taking lacosamide and 442 taking carbamazepine-CR were included in the full analysis set (took at least one dose of study treatment), and 408 and 397, respectively, were included in the per-protocol set. In the full analysis set, 327 (74%) patients in the lacosamide group and 308 (70%) in the carbamazepine-CR group completed 6 months of treatment without seizures. The proportion of patients in the full analysis set predicted by the Kaplan-Meier method to be seizure-free at 6 months was 90% taking lacosamide and 91% taking carbamazepine-CR (absolute treatment-difference: -1·3%, 95% CI -5·5 to 2·8 relative treatment difference: -6·0%). Kaplan-Meier estimates results were similar in the per-protocol set (92% and 93%; -1·3%, -5·3 to 2·7; -5·7%). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 328 (74%) patients receiving lacosamide and 332 (75%) receiving carbamazepine-CR. 32 (7%) patients taking lacosamide and 43 (10%) taking carbamazepine-CR had serious treatment-emergent adverse events, and 47 (11%) and 69 (16%), respectively, had treatment-emergent adverse events that led to withdrawal.

INTERPRETATION

Treatment with lacosamide met the predefined non-inferiority criteria when compared with carbamazepine-CR. Therefore, it might be useful as first-line monotherapy for adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

FUNDING

UCB Pharma.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

SIGNIFICANCE

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

The effects of lacosamide on cognition, quality-of-life measures, and quality of life in patients with refractory partial epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine cognitive and quality-of-life measures/quality of life outcomes with adjunctive lacosamide therapy in patients with treatment-resistant partial epilepsy.

METHODS

This was a prospective, open-label, nonblinded, adjunctive therapy test-retest (within subjects) study of patients with treatment-resistant partial epilepsy in which outcome (cognitive functioning and mood/quality of life) was measured in the same subject before and after adjunctive lacosamide administration for 24weeks. The cognitive assessment included the following: Controlled Oral Word Association Test, Buschke Selective Reminding Test, Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised, Stroop Color Word Test, Symbol Digit Modalities Test, Digit Span, Digit Cancellation, and Trails A and B. The quality-of-life measures/quality-of-life assessment included the following: Beck Depression Inventory-II, Profile of Mood States, and Quality of Life Inventory-89. Lacosamide was started at 100mg (50mg twice daily) and could be titrated as needed up to 400mg/day (200mg twice daily). Baseline concomitant AEDs were kept constant. Composite scores were calculated for a pre-post difference score for the cognitive and mood/quality-of-life measures separately and used in regression analyses to correct for the effects of age, education, seizure frequency, seizure severity, dose of lacosamide, and number of AEDs at baseline.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were enrolled (13 males, 21 females). Mean age was 38.8±2.43years. Mean seizure frequency decreased significantly from 2.0±2.55 seizures per week at baseline to 1.02±1.72 seizures per week at posttreatment (t=4.59, p<.0001) with a 50% responder rate seen in 18 patients (52.9%). No significant differences were found on the composite scores of the cognitive or the mood/quality-of-life measures after 6months of lacosamide.

SIGNIFICANCE

Lacosamide appeared to have low risks of significant changes in cognition or mood/quality of life. In addition, the present study supports prior studies that have proven lacosamide as an effective adjunctive therapy for the treatment of resistant partial epilepsy.

Long-term safety and sustained efficacy of USL255 (topiramate extended-release capsules) in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term safety, efficacy, and quality of life (QOL) of ≤400-mg/day USL255, Qudexy® XR (topiramate) extended-release capsules, as adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures (POS) in adults.

METHODS

Patients who completed the 11-week double-blind treatment phase of the phase 3 PREVAIL study were eligible to enroll in this 1-year open-label extension (OLE) study (PREVAIL OLE). The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of USL255 (including treatment-emergent adverse events [TEAEs]). The secondary objective was to assess seizure frequency in patients (e.g., median percent reduction from baseline in weekly POS frequency, responder rate [proportion of patients with ≥25%, ≥50%, ≥75%, or 100% reduction from baseline in POS frequency], and seizure-free intervals [proportion of patients who were seizure-free for 4, 12, 24, 36, or 48weeks]). Exploratory clinical-status endpoints included the Global Impression of Change (CGI-C) and Quality of Life in Epilepsy-Problems (QOLIE-31-P) questionnaires. Post hoc analyses evaluated neurocognitive TEAE incidences during the first 11 and entire 55weeks of treatment and efficacy by patient age and drug-resistant status.

RESULTS

Of the 217 patients who completed PREVAIL (USL255, n=103; placebo, n=114), 210 (97%) enrolled in PREVAIL OLE and were included in the ITT population. Across the entire 55-week treatment period, USL255 was generally safe and well tolerated, with low individual neurocognitive TEAE incidences. Seizure reduction was sustained across the year-long study and observed in patient subgroups, including those with highly drug-resistant seizures and those ≥50years of age. Improvements in CGI-C and QOLIE-31-P were also observed.

SIGNIFICANCE

The results of PREVAIL OLE are consistent with those from PREVAIL and demonstrate that adjunctive treatment with up to 400mg/day of USL255 may be a safe and effective treatment option for a variety of adult patients with refractory POS.

Lacosamide in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy: An observational multicentric open-label study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide (LCM) both as add-on therapy and monotherapy in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) based on an observational, prospective, multicenter study.

METHODS

We enrolled 100 patients (mean age: 43.4±12.53years, 57 females) with nonlesional TLE and TLE with hippocampal sclerosis (HS) that did not respond to the first drug and who were referred to epilepsy centers of the University of Catanzaro, University of Palermo, IRCSS Neuromed of Pozzilli, and Otto-von-Guericke University of Magdeburg. In this open-label, multicenter trial, patients were initiated on oral LCM as add-on therapy to first AED monotherapy or as a later add-on to two concomitant AEDs. Seizure frequency changes and adverse events were recorded for at least six months after LCM was added.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients dropped out because of positive MRI findings other than HS. Patients received LCM at 200-400mg/day. Fifty-eight out of these 86 patients with seizures that were previously drug-resistant had reduced seizure frequency after introduction of LCM. Forty-five out of 86 patients were classified as responders (12 were seizure-free, 33 achieved a reduction >50%). Interestingly, five patients out of 86 achieved seizure freedom for at least one year and progressively switched to monotherapy with LCM, and all five remained seizure-free at follow-up (6-48months).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results may suggest that LCM at doses of 200 to 400mg/day reduces seizure frequency in adults with TLE regardless of the presence of HS, and that it may be considered as a first add-on treatment for patients with pharmacoresistant TLE.

A long-term noninterventional safety study of adjunctive lacosamide therapy in patients with epilepsy and uncontrolled partial-onset seizures

This noninterventional, observational, postauthorization safety study (SP0942, NCT00771927) evaluated the incidence of predefined cardiovascular- (CV) and psychiatric-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), in patients with epilepsy and uncontrolled partial-onset seizures, when initiating adjunctive therapy with lacosamide or another approved antiepileptic drug (AED) according to standard medical practice. Active recording of predefined TEAEs of interest took place at three-monthly recommended visits for up to 12months. Of 1004 patients who received at least one dose of adjunctive AEDs, 511 initially added lacosamide therapy, 493 added another AED, 69 were ≥65years of age, and 72 took concomitant antiarrhythmic drugs. Patients in the lacosamide cohort had a higher median frequency of partial-onset seizures (6.0 versus 3.5 per 28days) despite taking more concomitant AEDs (84.9% versus 66.9% took ≥2) at baseline. Patients who added lacosamide took a modal dose of 200mg/day over the treatment period (n=501), and 50.1% (256/511) completed 12months of treatment. Fifty-one point nine percent (256/493) of patients who added another AED completed the study, with the most commonly added AED being levetiracetam (28.4%). Four patients (0.8%) in each cohort, all <65years of age, reported predefined CV-related TEAEs. None were considered serious or led to discontinuation. One event each of sinus bradycardia (lacosamide), atrioventricular block first degree (lacosamide), and syncope (other AED) were judged to be treatment-related. Another patient in the other AED cohort reported bradycardia while taking concomitant antiarrhythmic drugs. Predefined psychiatric-related TEAEs were reported by 21 patients (4.1%) in the lacosamide cohort and 27 patients (5.5%) in the other AED cohort. Depression was the most common to be treatment-related (7/11 and 12/18 of patients reporting treatment-related psychiatric TEAEs, respectively). Serious psychiatric-related TEAEs were reported by four patients who added lacosamide (two cases of depression, two of suicide attempt) and one who added another AED (depression). Seven deaths occurred, all of which were considered unrelated/unlikely related to study medication. This thorough evaluation revealed a low incidence of predefined CV- and psychiatric-related TEAEs in patients taking adjunctive AED therapy according to standard medical practice. No specific safety concerns related to adjunctive lacosamide therapy were noted.

Lacosamide tolerability in adult patients with partial-onset seizures: Impact of planned reduction and mechanism of action of concomitant antiepileptic drugs

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the impact of planned dose reduction and mechanism of action of concomitant AEDs on tolerability in adults with partial-onset seizures undergoing lacosamide (LCM) titration.

METHODS

Data were collected at baseline and 3-6 and 12-24 months post-LCM initiation. Subjects were categorized as having planned reduction of concomitant AEDs or not; AEDs were categorized as traditional sodium channel blockers (TSCB) or non-TSCB (NTSCB). Groups with/without planned reduction were compared on the presence and number of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) using chi-square tests or logistic regression and on time to LCM discontinuation with time-to-event methods controlling for standardized (STD) AED dose, a measure of concomitant AED load. Similar analyses were performed comparing subjects taking TSCB and NTSCB agents and used to identify relationships with ≥50% decreases in seizure frequency.

RESULTS

One hundred six adults (mean age 41.4 ± 13.4; 50% male) underwent LCM titration from June 2009-2011 with complete data. Reduction of concomitant AEDs was planned at the time of LCM initiation in 59 (55.7%) subjects. Fewer subjects with planned reduction had TEAEs (49.2% vs. 68.1%; p=0.05), and these subjects had a lower risk of TEAEs (OR 0.36; p=0.019) after adjusting for STD AED dose. The hazard ratio (95% CI) for LCM discontinuation was 0.46 (0.23, 0.94) in subjects with planned reduction of concomitant AEDs vs. others (p=0.033) and 3.29 (1.01, 10.70) in subjects taking TSCB vs. NTSCB agents (p=0.048). Among all cases, those who ever had TEAEs had significantly higher STD dose at both follow-up visits (p=0.033 and p=0.023, respectively). Seizure outcomes were not significantly different between groups at the last follow-up assessment.

SIGNIFICANCE

Planned reduction of concomitant AEDs during LCM initiation and the use of NTSCB agents only are associated with a reduced risk of TEAEs and LCM discontinuation in adults with partial-onset seizures. This study extends prior observations by considering total AED load in the assessment of tolerability and supports the benefits of early reduction of concomitant AEDs during LCM initiation.

Long-term efficacy and safety of adjunctive extended-release oxcarbazepine (Oxtellar XR® ) in adults with partial-onset seizures

Objective

To evaluate long‐term outcomes of adjunctive therapy with SPN‐804 (Oxtellar XR^®, Supernus Pharmaceuticals), an extended‐release tablet formulation of oxcarbazepine (OXC), in adults with refractory partial‐onset seizures.

Methods

After completing a 16‐week double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial of SPN‐804 at fixed dosages (1200 or 2400 mg QD), patients entering this open‐label extension study were converted in blinded fashion to 1200 mg QD SPN‐804 as a target starting dose for long‐term treatment. Patients were followed for 1 year, during which SPN‐804 dosages could be adjusted up to 2400 mg/day according to clinical response.

Results

Of 214 patients, 84% completed 1‐year open‐label treatment. Median maintenance SPN‐804 dosage was 1200 mg; <10% of patients required 2400 mg. Median 28‐day seizure frequency reduction from baseline was 59%; seizure frequency was reduced ≥50% in 58% of patients; 11% were seizure free ≥6 months; and 5% were seizure free ≥1 year. SPN‐804 was discontinued due to adverse events in 5% (n = 10). Incidences of each of the most common adverse events (dizziness, headache, diplopia, nausea, vomiting, balance disorder, blurred vision) were ≤15% during 1‐year follow‐up and occurred most frequently in patients previously naïve to SPN‐804. No new safety signals, no clinically significant changes in health status, and no deaths attributable to SPN‐804 were observed.

Conclusion

SPN‐804 administered once daily for 1 year was effective as adjunctive therapy in improving seizure control and maintaining therapeutic response in adults with refractory partial‐onset seizures. With dosage flexibility, SPN‐804 was well tolerated.

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

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate long-term (up to 5.5 years) safety, seizure reduction, and maintenance of efficacy of the antiepileptic drug (AED) lacosamide as adjunctive treatment in an open-label extension trial (SP774; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00515619).

METHODS

Three hundred and seventy-six adults with partial-onset seizures taking 1-3 AEDs enrolled following completion of a double-blind trial of adjunctive lacosamide. During open-label treatment, dosage of lacosamide (100-800 mg/day) and/or concomitant AEDs could be adjusted to optimize tolerability and seizure control.

RESULTS

Kaplan-Meier estimates of patient retention were 74.5% at 12 months, 52.9% at 36 months, and 40.6% at 60 months; median open-label treatment duration was 1183 days (~3.2 years). The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events were dizziness (24.2%), headache (14.4%), diplopia (13.8%), and nasopharyngitis (13.8%); 9.0% of patients discontinued due to adverse events, most commonly dizziness (1.3%). Median percent reduction in 28-day seizure frequency from baseline of the double-blind trial was 49.9% overall, 55.4% for 1-year completers, and 62.3% for 3-year completers. Overall, 50.0% of patients were considered ≥50% responders (achieved ≥50% reduction in 28-day seizure frequency); 55.9% of 1-year completers and 63.0% of 3-year completers were ≥50% responders.

CONCLUSION

In eligible patients who entered the open-label extension trial, lacosamide was generally well tolerated. For most patients within each yearly completer cohort, seizure reduction was maintained over time.

Safety and tolerability of lacosamide as adjunctive therapy for adults with partial-onset seizures: Analysis of data pooled from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe a priori protocol-defined analyses to evaluate the safety and tolerability of adjunctive oral lacosamide (200-600 mg/day) in adults (ages 16-70 years) with partial-onset seizures (POS) using data pooled from three similarly designed randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (SP667, SP754 [NCT00136019], SP755 [NCT00220415]).

METHODS

Patients with POS (≥2 years' duration, ≥2 previous antiepileptic drugs [AEDs]) uncontrolled by a stable dosing regimen of 1-3 concomitant AEDs were randomized to treatment with lacosamide at doses of 200 mg/day, 400 mg/day, or 600 mg/day, or placebo. Studies comprised a 4- to 6-week titration phase to target dose followed by a 12-week maintenance phase. Safety outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of particular relevance to patients with POS, overall TEAEs, and discontinuations due to TEAEs. Post hoc analyses included evaluation of TEAEs potentially related to cognition and TEAEs leading to discontinuation analyzed by concomitant AEDs.

RESULTS

One thousand three hundred eight patients were randomized to and received treatment; 944 to lacosamide and 364 to placebo. Most patients (84.4%) were taking 2 or 3 concomitant AEDs. The most common drug-associated TEAEs (reported by ≥5% of patients in any lacosamide dose group and with an incidence at least twice that reported for placebo during the treatment phase) were dizziness (30.6% for lacosamide vs 8.2% for placebo), nausea (11.4% vs 4.4%), and diplopia (10.5% vs 1.9%). Common drug-associated TEAEs generally appeared to be dose-related, and the incidence of each was lower during the 12-week maintenance phase than during the titration phase. Most TEAEs were either mild or moderate in intensity; severe TEAEs were predominantly observed with lacosamide 600 mg/day. No individual serious TEAE occurred in ≥1% of all lacosamide-treated patients. Treatment-emergent adverse events led to discontinuation in 8.1%, 17.2%, and 28.6% of the lacosamide 200-, 400-, and 600-mg/day groups, respectively (vs 4.9% of placebo). Few TEAEs were related to rash, weight loss/gain, changes in clinical chemistry parameters, or psychiatric disturbances, or were seizure-related. The odds of reporting any potential cognition-related TEAE vs placebo increased with dose and were similar between lacosamide doses of 200 and 400mg/day and placebo (odds ratio 1.3, 95% confidence interval 0.7-2.4). Discontinuations due to TEAEs based on most commonly used AEDs taken in combination with lacosamide (all doses combined) were carbamazepine (15.3% [51/334] vs 3.9% [5/129] placebo), lamotrigine (19.2% [56/291] vs 4.3% [5/117]), and levetiracetam (10.1% [28/278] vs 3.9% [4/103]).

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and tolerability profile of adjunctive lacosamide in this detailed evaluation was similar to that observed in the individual double-blind trials. Adjunctive lacosamide was associated with TEAEs related to the nervous system and gastrointestinal tract, predominantly during titration.

Lacosamide as adjunctive therapy in treatment-resistant epilepsy in childhood

AIMS

Lacosamide (LCM) is a novel anti-epileptic drug (AED) that enhances the slow inactivation of voltage-gated sodium channels. Its efficacy as adjunctive therapy for focal seizures is confirmed in adult placebo controlled trials with >50% reduction in seizure frequency in up to 50% patients. There is paucity of data on its efficacy and tolerance in treatment-resistant epilepsy in childhood (TREC). This study aims to assess efficacy and tolerance of LCM as adjunct therapy in TREC.

METHODS

Audit of medical records and seizure diaries in children with TREC on LCM. A response (RR) was defined as ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency.

RESULTS

Forty children (age range: 2-19 years) with TREC received LCM as add-on therapy. All had abnormal electroencephalograms, and 36 had abnormal neuroimaging. All children failed >2 AED trials, nine had trialled the ketogenic diet, five had failed the vagal nerve stimulator and 11 had failed resective epilepsy surgery. Median dose and duration of LCM therapy were 5.7 mg/kg/day and 10.5 months, respectively. RR was seen in 20% with persistence of RR in 8/36, 8/30 and 8/26 children on LCM at 3-, 6- and 9-month follow-up. Two children became seizure free. Retention on LCM was 65% at 9 months. LCM was well tolerated with minor side effects in seven children; no child discontinued LCM because of side effects.

CONCLUSION

LCM is a well-tolerated AED with RR in 20%: in 5%, it resulted in seizure freedom. LCM may be useful even in TREC when seizures have not responded to intervention with multiple modalities.