Lacosamide for the treatment of epilepsy

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

REGISTRATION

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

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.

Targeting the intracellular signaling "STOP" and "GO" pathways for the treatment of alcohol use disorders

In recent years, research has identified the molecular and neural substrates underlying the transition of moderate "social" consumption of alcohol to the characteristic alcohol use disorder (AUD) phenotypes including excessive and compulsive alcohol use which we define in the review as the GO signaling pathways. In addition, growing evidence points to the existence of molecular mechanisms that keep alcohol consumption in check and that confer resilience for the development of AUD which we define herein as the STOP signaling pathways. In this review, we focus on examples of the GO and the STOP intracellular signaling pathways and discuss our current knowledge of how manipulations of these pathways may be used for the treatment of AUD.

Profile of lacosamide and its role in the long-term treatment of epilepsy: a perspective from the updated NICE guideline

AIM

The goal of antiepileptic treatment is to achieve seizure freedom or seizure control. The aim of this paper is to review the evidence for the use of lacosamide for adjunctive treatment of refractory focal seizures with or without secondary generalization, within the scope of the 2012 update of the Clinical Guideline published by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).

METHODS

Clinical evidence for the use of lacosamide and other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) was systematically reviewed, evaluated, and presented to the Guideline Development Group. Only randomized clinical trials were included. Outcomes of clinical efficacy (seizure freedom, 50% reduction in seizure frequency, time to first seizure, time to 12-month remission, treatment withdrawal, and time to treatment withdrawal), experience of adverse events, and cognitive and quality of life outcomes were reviewed. A decision model was built to weigh the clinical benefits of each adjunctive AED, measured by seizure control and seizure reduction, compared with the harm from adverse events, as measured by withdrawals from treatment due to adverse events.

RESULTS

Lacosamide was included as part of the recommended AEDS to be used in tertiary epilepsy centers. The evidence review showed that more participants who received lacosamide as an adjunctive treatment had at least a 50% reduction in seizure frequency compared with those taking placebo. However, more participants on lacosamide were found to experience adverse events and withdrawal from treatment compared with those on placebo. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that compared with placebo, the benefits gained from adjunctive lacosamide were modest and uncertain, whereas the costs were significantly high. Compared with other AEDs licensed for adjunctive therapy in focal seizures, lacosamide was associated with fewer quality-adjusted life years and higher costs. Therefore, the Guideline Development Group noted that the balance of benefit and harm needs to be carefully monitored in all patients.