Clinical experience with using lacosamide for the treatment of epilepsy in a tertiary centre

Safety and Tolerability of Lacosamide in Patients With Epilepsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: As a third-generation antiseizure medication (ASM), lacosamide (LCM) is recommended worldwide for patients with epilepsy. We aimed to provide more conclusive evidence for the safety and tolerability of LCM in patients with epilepsy. Methods: A systematic search was performed on MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, IDB, VIP Database, and Wanfang Database from inception to 2021 March, and all studies assessing the safety of LCM were included. A meta-analysis was performed for safety data of LCM. Results: Eighty-three studies involving 12268 populations (11 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 16 cohort studies, 53 case series, and 3 case reports) were included in our study. Meta-analysis of the total incidence of adverse events (AEs) of LCM was 38.7% [95% CI (35.1%, 45.8%); n=75 studies]. Incidence of withdrawal due to AEs was 10.8% [95% CI (9.1%, 12.6%); n=56 studies], and incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) was 6.5% [95% CI (4.0%, 8.9%); n=13 studies]. Most AEs were in the nervous system and digestive system. The most common AEs were sedation (15.8%), dizziness (15.7%), fatigue (9.4%), and nausea/vomiting (9.3%). For children, the total incidence of AEs of LCM was 32.8% [95% CI (21.6%, 44.0%); n=16 studies], and the most common AEs were dizziness (8.6%), nausea/vomiting (8.6%), and somnolence (6.8%). Conclusion: Lacosamide is generally safe and well tolerated in patients with epilepsy. Common AEs were sedation, dizziness, and fatigue. It is necessary to pay more attention to the prevention and management of these AEs and conduct more large-scale and high-quality studies to update safety data.

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:

NCT01921205.

Classification of evidence

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

Safety and tolerability of adjunctive lacosamide in a pediatric population with focal seizures - An open-label trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate safety and tolerability of adjunctive lacosamide in children with focal seizures.

METHODS

Patients were eligible for this open-label, fixed-titration trial (SP0847; NCT00938431) if aged 1 month-17 years with focal seizures taking 1-3 antiepileptic drugs. Findings from Cohort 1, aged 5-11 years, who received lacosamide ≤8 mg/kg/day, informed dosing for age-based cohorts 2-5, who then received ≤12 mg/kg/day (≤600 mg/day). Oral lacosamide was initiated at 2 mg/kg/day (1 mg/kg bid) and uptitrated by 2 mg/kg/day/week to the maximum cohort-defined dose (maximum trial duration: 13 weeks). Patients who did not achieve the maximum cohort-defined dose were discontinued.

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients (aged 6 months-≤17 years) enrolled (≥1 month-<4 years: n = 15; ≥4-<12 years: n = 23; ≥12-≤17 years: n = 9). 24/47 (51.1%) patients completed the trial at the maximum cohort-defined dose and 40/47 (85.1%) continued lacosamide in the extension trial. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 42/47 (89.4%) patients. The most common TEAEs (≥10% of patients) were vomiting (21.3%), diarrhea (14.9%), somnolence (12.8%), irritability, dizziness, and pyrexia (10.6% each). Twenty (42.6%) patients discontinued due to TEAEs, most commonly vomiting (8.5%), gait disturbance, dizziness, and somnolence (6.4% each). Six (12.8%) patients reported serious TEAEs, most commonly status epilepticus (3/47; 6.4%).

CONCLUSION

This fixed-titration trial supports the safety of adjunctive lacosamide in children (aged 6 months-≤17 years) with focal seizures. The TEAE profile was generally consistent with that observed in trials in adults, and no new safety concerns were identified.

Adjunctive lacosamide treatment for adult focal-onset epilepsy: focus on comorbid intellectual/developmental disorders and differing responses

Background

Data regarding lacosamide treatment as an adjunctive therapy in patients representative of a focal-onset epilepsy population including those with and without intellectual/developmental disorders (IDDs) are limited.

Purpose

To evaluate the retention rates of lacosamide in focal-onset epilepsy patients with and without IDD.

Patients and methods

We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive electronic and paper medical records of patients diagnosed with focal-onset epilepsy who were treated with lacosamide in two tertiary epilepsy centers.

Results

One hundred and thirty-six patients who met the inclusion criteria were studied. Number of patients with IDD was 46 (33.8%). Median lacosamide dose was 300 mg/day. A total of 39 patients (28.7%) experienced side effects, and 22 of them (16.2%) discontinued lacosamide. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year retention rates of lacosamide in patients with IDD were 68%, 62%, and 53%, respectively. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showed that the retention rates were significantly lower in patients with IDD when compared to patients without IDD (P=0.04). Cox regression analysis showed that concomitant use of sodium channel blocker antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) was the only independent predictor of retention rate of lacosamide treatment (P=0.03). In the subgroup of patients with IDD, the analysis was performed again and the number of background AEDs was the only predictor for the retention rate of lacosamide (P=0.04).

Conclusion

When compared to patients without IDD, retention rates of lacosamide adjunctive therapy were lower in patients with IDD. However, these rates were higher than the rates suggested with previously registered AEDs including lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and topiramate. Therefore, irrespective of having comorbid IDD, we might suggest that lacosamide is a well-retained drug with a high efficacy profile in patients with focal-onset epilepsy.

Clinical and electrocorticographic response to antiepileptic drugs in patients treated with responsive stimulation

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to explore whether chronic electrocorticographic (ECoG) data recorded by a responsive neurostimulation system could be used to assess clinical responses to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs).

METHODS

Antiepileptic drugs initiated and maintained for ≥3 months by patients participating in clinical trials of the RNS^® System were identified. Such "AED Starts" that produced an additional ≥50% reduction in patient-reported clinical seizure frequency were categorized as clinically beneficial, and the remaining as not beneficial. Electrocorticographic features recorded by the RNS^® Neurostimulator were analyzed during three periods: 3 months before the AED Start, first month after the AED Start, and the first 3 months after the AED Start.

RESULTS

The most commonly added medications were clobazam (n = 41), lacosamide (n = 96), levetiracetam (n = 31), and pregabalin (n = 25). Across all four medications, there were sufficient clinical data for 193 AED Starts to be included in the analyses, and 59 AED Starts were considered clinically beneficial. The proportion of AED Starts that qualified as clinically beneficial was higher for clobazam (53.7%) and levetiracetam (51.6%) than for lacosamide (18.8%) and pregabalin (12%). Across all AED Starts for which RNS ECoG detection settings were held constant, the clinically beneficial AED Starts were associated with a significantly greater reduction in the detection of epileptiform activity (p < 0.001) at 1 (n = 33) and 3 months (n = 30) compared with AED Starts that were not beneficial at 1 (n = 71) and 3 months (n = 60). Furthermore, there was a significant reduction in interictal spike rate and spectral power (1-125 Hz) associated with a clinically beneficial response to an AED Start at 1 (n = 32) and 3 months (n = 35) (p < 0.001). These reductions were not observed at either 1 (n = 59) or 3 months (n = 60) for AED Starts that were not clinically beneficial.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant quantitative changes in ECoG data recorded by the RNS System were observed in patients who experienced an additional clinical response to a new AED. While there was variability across patients in the changes observed, the results suggest that quantitative ECoG data may provide useful information when assessing whether a patient may have a favorable clinical response to an AED.

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.

Lacosamide and concomitant use of antiepileptic and other medications in a US population - A retrospective cohort study

Information on the use of lacosamide and concomitant antiepileptic and non-antiepileptic drugs (non-AEDs) is available from clinical trials and observational studies with small sample sizes. This retrospective cohort study was conducted to gain insight into the use of lacosamide in a large number of patients with epilepsy in real-life clinical practice with less restrictive selection criteria compared with clinical trial participants. The Truven Health MarketScan (Commercial Claims and Medicare Supplemental) database was used to identify patients with a prior diagnosis of epilepsy with at least one prescription claim for lacosamide between June 2009 and September 2013 and continuous health insurance enrolment with medical and pharmacy coverage during the 1-year pre-index baseline period. A total of 8859 eligible patients were identified, of whom, at index (lacosamide initiation), 16.8% received lacosamide as monotherapy and 54.0% as polytherapy. The median prescription duration was 196days (Interquartile range 69-476days). Levetiracetam was the most frequently prescribed concomitant AED across all age groups, followed by phenytoin among older (>65years) and lamotrigine among younger patients. Older patients who had LCM monotherapy at initiation, were prescribed fewer concomitant AEDs, but more non-AEDs. The most common non-AED medications were prescribed for pain, psychiatric conditions, hyperlipidemia and gastrointestinal diseases across all age groups. Overall, results suggest that the lacosamide use is driven predominantly by age and that there is substantial use of lacosamide monotherapy (16.8%), despite lack of indication at the time of the study. Results also reveal substantial use of concomitant non-AEDs; 90.4% among patients >65years of age and 54.3% among those ≤17years, confirming the high prevalence of comorbidities among patients with epilepsy across all ages. Despite the availability of numerous newer AEDs, older AEDs are still being frequently prescribed, especially for elderly patients, notably phenytoin. This warrants careful consideration, given the strong propensity of enzyme-inducing AEDs to interact with other drugs, producing unwanted side effects. These results highlight the value of real-life prescription patterns and the potential in informing treatment decisions to ensure patients receive appropriate treatment.

Long-term lacosamide retention-Real-world experience at a tertiary epilepsy center in Ireland

PURPOSE

To estimate the rate of long-term lacosamide retention among a real-world group of patients at a tertiary epilepsy center in Ireland.

METHODS

One-hundred adults first prescribed lacosamide for epilepsy between January 2010 and August 2014 at Cork University Hospital were randomly selected for a retrospective analysis of medical records covering two years of subsequent epilepsy clinic follow-up to ascertain whether lacosamide was continued or withdrawn.

RESULTS

Of 100 patients, (51 males, mean age 40.8years, 94 with drug-resistant epilepsy, 76 with focal epilepsy, 25 with intellectual disabilities, 34 with mental health disorders, and 42 with medical comorbidities), lacosamide was prescribed as an adjunct in 85. Lacosamide retention at 12 and 24months was 76% and 71%, respectively. Twenty-five patients stopped lacosamide due to ineffective seizure control. Adverse-effects were responsible for lacosamide discontinuation in three patients and one patient stopped lacosamide pre-pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

The relatively high retention rate at two years suggests that lacosamide is generally well tolerated among people with a range of different epilepsy subtypes, intellectual disabilities, medical comorbidities, and mental health disorders, and can aid seizure control in adult patients with a range of difficult-to-treat epilepsies.

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.

Cognitive effects of lacosamide as adjunctive therapy in refractory epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Lacosamide (LCM) is a novel antiepileptic drug (AED) with potential benefit as adjunctive treatment in patients with partial-onset seizures. As yet, limited information on cognitive effects of LCM is available, especially in real-life settings.

AIMS

In this open clinical prospective study, the cognitive effects of LCM were evaluated when used as adjunctive antiepileptic therapy in patients with refractory epilepsy.

METHODS

We included 33 patients aged between 16 and 74 years (mean: 37 years). All patients had a localization-related epilepsy. Patients were assessed at baseline before starting LCM treatment and during follow-up when the optimal clinical dose was achieved.

MATERIALS

Subjective complaints were evaluated using the SIDAED; effects on cognition were evaluated using the computerized visual searching task (CVST).

RESULTS

The CVST showed significant faster information processing reaction times at the second evaluation (P = 0.013), which was not correlated with seizure control, type of epilepsy, age, gender, drug load, number of concomitant drugs, dose or duration of LCM treatment. On the SIDAED, patients complained more about their cognitive function at the second evaluation (P = 0.005). For the SIDAED, a positive correlation at follow-up was found between the total severity score and higher age (r = 0.375, P = 0.031), but not with epilepsy factors or treatment characteristics.

DISCUSSION/CONLUSION

Screening of the cognitive effects of LCM showed that LCM does not have negative effects on information processing speed. As this is the most sensitive function for cognitive side effects of AEDs, LCM does not seem to induce the common negative cognitive effects. Remarkably, patients complained more, especially about their cognitive function, which is possible the 'doing better, feeling worse phenomenon'.

Lacosamide as adjunctive therapy in refractory epilepsy in adults: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To review the evidence for efficacy and safety of lacosamide in adult patients with refractory epilepsy and refractory status epilepticus (RSE).

METHODS

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, IPA, Google and Google Scholar (through October 2014) was performed.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies assessing lacosamide in 3509 refractory epilepsy patients were included. In 3 RCTs, more patients had at least 50% reduction in seizure frequency with lacosamide compared to placebo with 38.3-41.1%, 38.1-41.2%, and 18.3-25.8%, in the 400 mg/day, 600 mg/day, and placebo groups, respectively. In non-comparative trials, 18-69% of patients achieved at least 50% reduction in seizure frequency, and 1.7-26.2% achieved seizure freedom. Non-responders were documented in two trials, with 26.2-34% having no response. Thirteen studies assessing lacosamide in 390 RSE patients were included. When assessing lacosamide's ability to terminate RSE, one comparative cohort study found no improvement in SE duration or seizure control with addition of lacosamide. Another study documented no difference compared to use of phenytoin. Eleven descriptive studies using lacosamide as add-on RSE therapy revealed seizure termination rates of 0-100% (median 64.7%). In all patients receiving lacosamide, dizziness (21.8%), vision disturbances (10.4%), drowsiness (7.4%), headache (7.0%), nausea (6.5%), and coordination problems (5.8%) were the most common adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Based on evidence to date, adjunctive lacosamide is a treatment option to reduce seizure frequency in patients with refractory epilepsy and terminate seizures in patients with RSE. The safety information summary can be used to advise patients of potential adverse effects.

Update on the use of lacosamide in the treatment of partial-onset seizures

ABSTRAT: 

Lacosamide has a novel mechanism of action, namely selective enhancement of slow inactivation of voltage-gated sodium channels. Trial data and clinical experience indicate that it is effective in the treatment of partial-onset seizures, and that it is well tolerated. Pivotal early clinical trials demonstrated median percent reductions in seizure frequency ranging from 26 to 35.3% in the 200 mg/day, from 36.4 to 39% in the 400 mg/day, and from 37.8 to 40% in the 600 mg/day treatment groups. Dose-related adverse events were similar in the early clinical trials, and were mainly CNS complaints including dizziness, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, ataxia, abnormal vision, diplopia and nystagmus. Because of the dose-dependent adverse events and lack of additional efficacy at the 600 mg/day daily dose, lacosamide has been approved as an adjunctive treatment at recommended daily doses of 200–400 mg/day.

Control of seizures in different stages of partial epilepsy: LACO-EXP, a Spanish retrospective study of lacosamide

Lacosamide is approved as adjunctive therapy for focal epilepsies. The number of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) tried is associated with prognosis. This multicenter, retrospective, observational study (LACO-EXP) in Spain in 500 adult patients with focal epilepsies examined the efficacy and tolerability of add-on lacosamide. Factors associated with better efficacy/tolerability were analyzed. After 12months, the responder rate (≥50% reduction in seizure frequency) was 57.1%, and the seizure-free rate was 14.9%. Efficacy was better when lacosamide was the first or second add-on AED, although there was a small chance to be seizure-free even for patients who had received ≤10 prior AEDs. The mechanism of action of concomitant AEDs is important in all the stages, but differences are smaller in the early stages. Lacosamide was generally well tolerated. A slower dosage-titration schedule was associated with a lower adverse event rate. Further investigation of the timing of initiation of lacosamide add-on therapy and ideal combinations of AEDs is required.