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.

Response of focal refractory status epilepticus to lacosamide in an infant

Status epilepticus (SE) is a life-threatening medical emergency which is frequently encountered in the critical care setting and can be refractory to treatment. Refractory status epilepticus (RSE) is defined as SE that has failed to respond to adequately used first-line and second-line antiepileptic medications. Super refractory status epilepticus is defined as SE that persists for 24 hours or more after the use of an anaesthetic agent or recurs after its withdrawal.If SE persists beyond a period of 7 days it is referred to as prolonged, refractory status epilepticus (PRSE). There are limited data guiding treatment of RSE in the paediatric population.Lacosamide (LCM) is licensed as an adjunctive treatment for partial-onset seizures. Evidence for the efficacy of LCM in paediatric SE is scarce. This case report may suggest a synergistic effect of LCM on slow-activation sodium channels in conjunction with medications such as phenytoin that causes fast inactivation of sodium channels. The dual fast and slow inactivation of sodium channels may enhance the effectiveness in treatment of RSE. This is the first case report of PRSE in an infant, successfully treated with LCM. A brief review of literature is also a part of this report.

Treatment of Refractory Convulsive Status Epilepticus: A Comprehensive Review by the American Epilepsy Society Treatments Committee

Purpose:

Established tonic–clonic status epilepticus (SE) does not stop in one-third of patients when treated with an intravenous (IV) benzodiazepine bolus followed by a loading dose of a second antiseizure medication (ASM). These patients have refractory status epilepticus (RSE) and a high risk of morbidity and death. For patients with convulsive refractory status epilepticus (CRSE), we sought to determine the strength of evidence for 8 parenteral ASMs used as third-line treatment in stopping clinical CRSE.

Methods:

A structured literature search (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL) was performed to identify original studies on the treatment of CRSE in children and adults using IV brivaracetam, ketamine, lacosamide, levetiracetam (LEV), midazolam (MDZ), pentobarbital (PTB; and thiopental), propofol (PRO), and valproic acid (VPA). Adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), magnesium sulfate, and pyridoxine were added to determine the effectiveness in treating hard-to-control seizures in special circumstances. Studies were evaluated by predefined criteria and were classified by strength of evidence in stopping clinical CRSE (either as the last ASM added or compared to another ASM) according to the 2017 American Academy of Neurology process.

Results:

No studies exist on the use of ACTH, corticosteroids, or IVIg for the treatment of CRSE. Small series and case reports exist on the use of these agents in the treatment of RSE of suspected immune etiology, severe epileptic encephalopathies, and rare epilepsy syndromes. For adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists on the effectiveness of brivaracetam (level U; 4 class IV studies). For children and adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists on the effectiveness of ketamine (level U; 25 class IV studies). For children and adults with CRSE, it is possible that lacosamide is effective at stopping RSE (level C; 2 class III, 14 class IV studies). For children with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists that LEV and VPA are equally effective (level U, 1 class III study). For adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support the effectiveness of LEV (level U; 2 class IV studies). Magnesium sulfate may be effective in the treatment of eclampsia, but there are only case reports of its use for CRSE. For children with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support either that MDZ and diazepam infusions are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study) or that MDZ infusion and PTB are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study). For adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support either that MDZ infusion and PRO are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study) or that low-dose and high-dose MDZ infusions are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study). For children and adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that MDZ is effective as the last drug added (level U; 29 class IV studies). For adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that PTB and PRO are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study). For adults and children with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that PTB is effective as the last ASM added (level U; 42 class IV studies). For CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that PRO is effective as the last ASM used (level U; 26 class IV studies). No pediatric-only studies exist on the use of PRO for CRSE, and many guidelines do not recommend its use in children aged <16 years. Pyridoxine-dependent and pyridoxine-responsive epilepsies should be considered in children presenting between birth and age 3 years with refractory seizures and no imaging lesion or other acquired cause of seizures. For children with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists that VPA and diazepam infusion are equally effective (level U, 1 class III study). No class I to III studies have been reported in adults treated with VPA for CRSE. In comparison, for children and adults with established convulsive SE (ie, not RSE), after an initial benzodiazepine, it is likely that loading doses of LEV 60 mg/kg, VPA 40 mg/kg, and fosphenytoin 20 mg PE/kg are equally effective at stopping SE (level B, 1 class I study).

Conclusions:

Mostly insufficient evidence exists on the efficacy of stopping clinical CRSE using brivaracetam, lacosamide, LEV, valproate, ketamine, MDZ, PTB, and PRO either as the last ASM or compared to others of these drugs. Adrenocorticotropic hormone, IVIg, corticosteroids, magnesium sulfate, and pyridoxine have been used in special situations but have not been studied for CRSE. For the treatment of established convulsive SE (ie, not RSE), LEV, VPA, and fosphenytoin are likely equally effective, but whether this is also true for CRSE is unknown. Triple-masked, randomized controlled trials are needed to compare the effectiveness of parenteral anesthetizing and nonanesthetizing ASMs in the treatment of CRSE.

Therapeutic Options for Patients with Refractory Status Epilepticus in Palliative Settings or with a Limitation of Life-Sustaining Therapies: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Refractory status epilepticus (RSE) represents a serious medical condition requiring early and targeted therapy. Given the increasing number of elderly or multimorbid patients with a limitation of life-sustaining therapy (LOT) or within a palliative care setting (PCS), guidelines-oriented therapy escalation options for RSE have to be omitted frequently.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review sought to summarize the evidence for fourth-line antiseizure drugs (ASDs) and other minimally or non-invasive therapeutic options beyond guideline recommendations in patients with RSE to elaborate on possible treatment options for patients undergoing LOT or in a PCS.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, focusing on fourth-line ASDs or other minimally or non-invasive therapeutic options was performed in February and June 2020 using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. The search terminology was constructed using the name of the specific ASD or therapy option and the term 'status epilepticus' with the use of Boolean operators, e.g. "(brivaracetam) AND (status epilepticus)". The respective Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Emtree terms were used, if available.

RESULTS

There is currently no level 1, grade A evidence for the use of ASDs in RSE. The best evidence was found for the use of lacosamide and topiramate (level 3, grade C), followed by brivaracetam, perampanel (each level 4, grade D) and stiripentol, oxcarbazepine and zonisamide (each level 5, grade D). Regarding non-medicinal options, there is little evidence for the use of the ketogenic diet (level 4, grade D) and magnesium sulfate (level 5, grade D) in RSE. The broad use of immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive treatment options in the absence of a presumed autoimmune etiology cannot be recommended; however, if an autoimmune etiology is assumed, steroid pulse, intravenous immunoglobulins and plasma exchange/plasmapheresis should be considered (level 4, grade D). Even if several studies suggested that the use of neurosteroids (level 5, grade D) is beneficial in RSE, the current data situation indicates that there is formal evidence against it.

CONCLUSIONS

RSE in patients undergoing LOT or in a PCS represents a challenge for modern clinicians and epileptologists. The evidence for the use of ASDs in RSE beyond that in current guidelines is low, but several effective and well-tolerated options are available that should be considered in this patient population. More so than in any other population, advance care planning, advance directives, and medical ethical aspects have to be considered carefully before and during therapy.

Pharmacotherapy for Pediatric Convulsive Status Epilepticus

Convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) is one of the most common pediatric neurological emergencies. Ongoing seizure activity is a dynamic process and may be associated with progressive impairment of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-mediated inhibition due to rapid internalization of GABA_A receptors. Further hyperexcitability may be caused by AMPA (alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid) and NMDA (N-methyl-D-aspartic acid) receptors moving from subsynaptic sites to the synaptic membrane. Receptor trafficking during prolonged seizures may contribute to difficulties treating seizures of longer duration and may provide some of the pathophysiological underpinnings of established and refractory SE (RSE). Simultaneously, a practice change toward more rapid initiation of first-line benzodiazepine (BZD) treatment and faster escalation to second-line non-BZD treatment for established SE is in progress. Early administration of the recommended BZD dose is suggested. For second-line treatment, non-BZD anti-seizure medications (ASMs) include valproate, fosphenytoin, or levetiracetam, among others, and at this point there is no clear evidence that any one of these options is better than the others. If seizures continue after second-line ASMs, RSE is manifested. RSE treatment consists of bolus doses and titration of continuous infusions under continuous electro-encephalography (EEG) guidance until electrographic seizure cessation or burst-suppression. Ultimately, etiological workup and related treatment of CSE, including broad spectrum immunotherapies as clinically indicated, is crucial. A potential therapeutic approach for future studies may entail consideration of interventions that may accelerate diagnosis and treatment of SE, as well as rational and early polytherapy based on synergism between ASMs by utilizing medications targeting different mechanisms of epileptogenesis and epileptogenicity.

Intravenous lacosamide (LCM) in status epilepticus (SE): Weight-adjusted dose and efficacy

BACKGROUND

Some studies suggest higher efficacy of lacosamide (LCM) in status epilepticus (SE) with higher loading doses; however, this weight-adjusted dose has not been evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to evaluate the relationship between loading weight-adjusted dose and efficacy of LCM in SE.

METHODS

A group of patients with SE treated with LCM from Spanish hospitals was examined retrospectively. Demographic data, type of SE, etiology, response rate, last antiepileptic drug (AED) used, treatment line in which LCM was used, total loading dose, and weight-adjusted dose were collected.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-five cases of SE were collected; 87 (52.7%) patients had nonconvulsive SE. Mean age was 64.2 ± 17.2 and 60.6% (n = 100) were men. Regarding etiology, SE was considered as acute symptomatic in 85 (51.5%), remote symptomatic in 51 (30.9%), progressive symptomatic in 10 (6.1%), and cryptogenic in 19 (11.5%). Lacosamide was used as the third drug in 46.1%, and as a second option in 28%. In 115 patients, clonazepam had been used as the first option, and no benzodiazepines had been administered in the remaining 50. The median loading dose was 400 mg (100-600 mg), and the weight-adjusted dose was 5 mg/kg (3-6 mg/kg). The response rate was 63.3%, and 55.1% responded within the first 12 h. Efficacy was significantly higher in patients who had taken benzodiazepines at LCM loading doses >5.3 mg/kg (p = 0.006). This relationship was maintained independent of using other concomitant AEDs. However, if benzodiazepines were not taken, this relationship was not found.

CONCLUSIONS

In adults with benzodiazepine-resistant SE, the response rate to LCM was higher, with weight-adjusted doses above 5.3 mg/kg.

Safety of intravenous lacosamide in critically ill children

PURPOSE

Acute seizures are common in critically ill children. These patients would benefit from intravenous anti-seizure medications with few adverse effects. We reviewed the usage and effects of intravenous lacosamide in critically ill children with seizures or status epilepticus.

METHODS

This retrospective series included consecutive patients who received at least one dose of intravenous lacosamide from April 2011 to February 2016 in the pediatric intensive care unit of a quaternary care children's hospital, including patients with new lacosamide initiation and continuation of outpatient oral lacosamide. Dosing and prescribing practices were reviewed. Adverse effects were defined by predefined criteria, and most were evaluated during the full admission.

RESULTS

We identified 51 intensive care unit admissions (47 unique patients) with intravenous lacosamide administration. Lacosamide was utilized as a third or fourth-line anti-seizure medication for acute seizures or status epilepticus in the lacosamide-naïve cohort. One patient experienced bradycardia and one patient experienced a rash that were considered potentially related to lacosamide. No other adverse effects were identified, including no evidence of PR interval prolongation.

CONCLUSIONS

Lacosamide was well tolerated in critically ill children. Further study is warranted to evaluate the effectiveness of earlier lacosamide use for pediatric status epilepticus and acute seizures.

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.

Management of Status Epilepticus in Children

Status epilepticus is a common pediatric neurological emergency. Management includes prompt administration of appropriately selected anti-seizure medications, identification and treatment of seizure precipitant(s), as well as identification and management of associated systemic complications. This review discusses the definitions, classification, epidemiology and management of status epilepticus and refractory status epilepticus in children.

Treatment of Generalized Convulsive Status Epilepticus in Pediatric Patients

Generalized convulsive status epilepticus (GCSE) is one of the most common neurologic emergencies and can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality if not treated promptly and aggressively. Management of GCSE is staged and generally involves the use of life support measures, identification and management of underlying causes, and rapid initiation of anticonvulsants. The purpose of this article is to review and evaluate published reports regarding the treatment of impending, established, refractory, and super-refractory GCSE in pediatric patients.

Lacosamide in children with refractory status epilepticus. A multicenter Italian experience

OBJECTIVE

Status epilepticus (SE) is considered a life-threatening medical emergency. First-line treatment with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) consists of intravenous benzodiazepines followed by phenytoin. SE is considered refractory (RSE) when unresponsive to standard doses of the first two AEDs. Scarce evidence is available to support specific guidelines for the management of RSE in either adults or children. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of intravenous (iv) lacosamide (LCM) in children affected by RSE.

METHOD

Children with RSE who were treated with ivLCM were included in the study. Efficacy was defined as the cessation of seizures after administration of ivLCM, with no need for any further antiepileptic drug. All patients had been unsuccessfully treated following standard protocols before ivLCM was administered.

RESULTS

Eleven children entered the study (mean age: 9.4 years). Etiology was symptomatic in 7 patients (63%). RSE was convulsive (focal or generalized) in 6 patients and nonconvulsive in 5. The mean initial bolus dose of LCM was 8.6 mg/kg. The drug, which was used as a fourth or later option, was effective in stopping RSE in 45% of patients, with seizures terminating within 12 h in three children. No serious adverse events attributable to LCM were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

LCM might be an effective and well-tolerated AED in children with RSE.

Factors influencing response to intravenous lacosamide in emergency situations: LACO-IV study

Status epilepticus (SE) and acute repetitive seizures (ARSs) frequently result in emergency visits. Wide variations in response are seen with standard antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Oral and intravenous (IV) formulations of lacosamide are approved as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of partial-onset seizures in adults and adolescents. The aim of the retrospective multicenter observational study (LACO-IV) was to analyze data from a large cohort of patients with SE or ARSs of varying severity and etiology, who received IV lacosamide in the emergency setting. Patient clinical data were entered into a database; lacosamide use and efficacy and tolerability variables were analyzed. In SE, IV lacosamide tended to be used mainly in nonconvulsive status epilepticus as second- or third-line treatment. The proportion of patients with no seizures when IV lacosamide was the last drug administered was 76.5% (70.9% SE and 83.7% ARSs). The rate of seizure cessation ≤ 24 h after IV lacosamide administration was 57.1% (49.1% SE and 67.4% ARSs). Of the factors analyzed, a shorter latency from seizure onset to IV lacosamide infusion influenced treatment response significantly. A nonsignificant tendency towards a higher response was seen with lacosamide dose >200mg versus ≤ 200 mg. Analysis of response according to mechanism of action showed no significant differences in response to IV lacosamide in patients receiving prior sodium channel blocker (SCB) or non-SCB AEDs in the overall or SE population; however, in ARSs, a tendency towards a higher response was observed in those receiving non-SCB AEDs. The frequency and nature of adverse events observed were in line with those reported in other studies (somnolence being the most frequent). In the absence of randomized prospective controlled studies of IV lacosamide, our observations suggest that IV lacosamide may be a potential alternative for treatment of SE/ARSs when seizures fail to improve with standard AEDs or when AEDs are contraindicated or not recommended.

Lacosamide as a new treatment option in status epilepticus

Status epilepticus is among the most common neurologic emergencies, with a mortality rate of up to 20%. The most important therapeutic goal is fast, effective, and well-tolerated cessation of status epilepticus. Intravenous phenytoin/fosphenytoin, phenobarbital, or valproate is the current standard treatment after failure of benzodiazepines. Lacosamide as a new antiepileptic drug has been available as an intravenous solution since 2009. To date, PubMed lists 19 studies (10 single case reports and 9 case series), reporting a total of 136 episodes of refractory status epilepticus (50% nonconvulsive status epilepticus, 31% focal status epilepticus, and 19% convulsive status epilepticus) treated with lacosamide. The most often used bolus dose was 200-400 mg over 3-5 min. The overall success rate was 56% (76/136). Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 25% (34/136) of patients: mild sedation in 25 cases, 1 patient with possible angioedema, 2 with allergic skin reaction, 4 with hypotension, and 1 with pruritus. One patient developed a third-degree atrioventricular (AV) block and paroxysmal asystole. Overall, the rate of AEs was low. Current evidence on the use of intravenous lacosamide in acute seizures and status epilepticus is restricted to retrospective case reports and case series (class IV). Further prospective studies to inform clinicians are necessary.