Adjunctive lacosamide—5 Years’ clinical experience

The economic burden of newly diagnosed epilepsy in Spain

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the hospital burden and economic impact of epilepsy in adults in Spain and identify characteristics associated with higher direct medical costs.

METHOD

Patients newly diagnosed with epilepsy at the outpatient epilepsy unit of a tertiary hospital in Spain in 2012 were included. Sociodemographic and clinical data and use of health resources were collected retrospectively from electronic medical records from the time of diagnosis to the end of follow-up (2019). Direct costs (in 2012 Euro) were estimated and linear regression models built to explore predictors of higher costs.

RESULTS

We studied 110 patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Their mean (SD) age was 52.6 (19.6) years and 53.6% were men. Eighty-nine patients (80.9%) had focal epilepsy and 45 (40.9%) had an unknown etiology. At 6 months, 79.1% of patients were classified as responders and 17.6% as having drug-resistant epilepsy. The mean direct cost in the first year of epilepsy diagnosis was €3816.06, 49.7% of which was due to hospital admissions. The mean annual cost per patient was €2584.17, 51.4% of which was due to anti-seizure medications (ASMs). Focal epilepsy and poor response in the first 6 months of treatment predicted higher annual costs, while focal epilepsy and pre-existing comorbidities predicted higher costs in the first year.

CONCLUSIONS

The direct cost of newly diagnosed epilepsy in adults in our area is €2584 per patient/year. Anti-seizure medication use is the main cost driver. Focal epilepsy, comorbidities, and poor response to ASMs are independent predictors of higher costs.

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.

Lacosamide as first add-on or conversion monotherapy: A retrospective real-life study

PURPOSE

Lacosamide (LCM), the R-enantiomer of 2-acetamido-N-benzyl-3-methoxypropionamide, is a newer approved antiseizure medication characterized by a novel pharmacodynamic and favorable pharmacokinetic profile that was approved as adjunctive treatment for adults with focal onset and focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures in 2008, and recently also for monotherapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of LCM as first add-on or conversion monotherapy in adult subjects with focal epilepsy.

METHODS

We retrospectively included all adult patients who received LCM as first add-on regimen or as substitution monotherapy at least 12 months before starting the chart review, with a historical baseline of 6 months prior to day of the first administration of LCM. The choice of treatment was made independently by the epilepstologists, according to routine clinical practice. Clinical data were obtained at 3, 6, and 12 months after subjects started LCM and then analyzed to assess retention rate, seizure freedom, and adverse events (AE).

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients (58 men) with a mean age of 44 years and a median epilepsy duration of 6.6 years (range 1-53) were included in the study. At 12 months 72 patients retained LCM, 54 (75%) of them were seizure free, 44 (81.5%) in monotherapy and 10 (18.5%) in add-on LCM treatment. Among all subjects, 31 (57.4%) were free from seizure under LCM monotherapy throughout the entire observation period. Thirty one out of 72 (43%) PwE who retained LCM at 12 months, were free from seizures throughout the entire observation period. The maintenance median dosage of LCM was 200 mg/day. Ten (10%) subjects reported mild to moderate AE, most commonly drowsiness and dizziness. No serious AE were documented.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-life study confirms that LCM is an effective and well tolerated treatment option as first add-on or conversion monotherapy for focal seizures.

Adjunctive brivaracetam - A prospective audit of outcomes from an epilepsy clinic

OBJECTIVE

Brivaracetam (BRV), is licensed in Europe as adjunctive treatment, and in the United States of America as adjunctive and monotherapy for focal seizures with or without secondary generalization in adults, adolescents, and children ≥4 years. As BRV becomes available globally, this prospective audit was undertaken to gain an understanding of how best to use the anti-seizure medication (ASM) in the everyday clinical setting.

METHODS

Brivaracetam was started by patients ≥16 years with difficult-to-control epilepsy at Glasgow epilepsy clinics following a 12-week baseline on stable ASM doses. Target dosing was 200 mg/day. Review occurred every 12-16 weeks until 1 of 4 end-points occurred: seizure freedom for ≥6 months on a given BRV dose; ≥50% (responder) or <50% (marginal benefit) seizure reduction over 6 months compared with baseline on the highest tolerated BRV dose; withdrawal of BRV due to lack of efficacy, adverse effects, or both.

RESULTS

An end-point has been reached by 108 patients (38 men, 70 women; median age 45 years), 88 with focal-onset seizures and 20 with genetic generalized epilepsies (GGEs). Of these, 71 (65.7%) have benefitted from BRV, including 23 (21.3%) who have been seizure free for ≥6 months on a median BRV dose of 100 mg/day (range 25-200 mg/day). A further 18 (16.7%) were classified as responders and 30 (27.8%) showed marginal benefit. Brivaracetam benefitted 16 (80.0%) patients with GGEs, 5 becoming seizure free. Generalized tonic-clonic seizures, absences, and myoclonic seizures were completely controlled in 4 (25%) patients with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy. Brivaracetam monotherapy was established in 12 patients, 3 of whom had GGEs. Levetiracetam (LEV) had previously been prescribed in 53 patients who had discontinued the ASM due to lack of efficacy, side effects, or both. Adjunctive BRV benefitted 34 (64.2%) of these patients. Brivaracetam was withdrawn in 37 (34.3%) patients, (23 side effects, 4 lack of efficacy, 10 both). Sedation was the commonest side effect leading to BRV withdrawal (n = 14; 13.0%). Psychiatric side effects resulted in BRV discontinuation in 9 (8.3%) patients.

SIGNIFICANCE

Brivaracetam has efficacy for a range of seizure types and syndromes in a wide range of doses. The ASM can produce positive outcomes in patients who have failed LEV. Post-marketing studies remain a useful tool to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of novel ASMs in everyday clinical practice.

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.

Changes in drug load during lacosamide combination therapy: A noninterventional, observational study in German and Austrian clinical practice

Introduction

Effects of antiepileptic drug (AED) load changes in patients with focal seizures have not been well evaluated.

Methods

SP1065 (NCT01673282) was a noninterventional, prospective, observational study conducted in a clinical practice setting. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with focal seizures were enrolled within 7 days of being prescribed adjunctive lacosamide. Observation period was ~6 months. Drug load was assessed using percentage change in ratio of actual prescribed dose and World Health Organization defined daily dose (DDD) for concomitant AEDs and all AEDs (including lacosamide). Subgroups were defined for patients with at least one concomitant sodium channel–blocking AED (SCB [+]) and those without (SCB [−]).

Results

A total of 311 patients were assessed for safety, 302 for measurement of drug load, and 240 for effectiveness. Ratio of AED dose to DDD decreased for concomitant AEDs (−9.6%) and increased for all AEDs (including lacosamide; 15.5%). Median reduction in focal seizure frequency per 28 days was 100% (range: −100, 2275.8). 70.4% and 61.7% of patients had a ≥50% or ≥75% reduction in seizure frequency, respectively; 50.8% became seizure‐free. In the SCB (+) subgroup (n = 149), ratio of AED dose to DDD decreased for concomitant AEDs (−15.0%) and increased for all AEDs (10.7%). In the SCB (−) subgroup (n = 153), ratio of AED dose to DDD decreased for concomitant AEDs (−4.4%) and increased for all AEDs (20.2%). Fifty‐seven patients (18.3%) reported ADRs, most commonly dose >400 mg/d (7.1%). Seventeen patients (5.5%) had ADRs leading to discontinuation.

Significance

Addition of lacosamide resulted in reduction of concomitant AED drug load regardless of whether concomitant AEDs were SCB (+) or SCB (−). These results indicate that addition of lacosamide in patients with focal seizures could allow clinicians to withdraw or reduce the dose of less well‐tolerated or less effective AEDs.

Lacosamide monotherapy in clinical practice: A retrospective chart review

OBJECTIVE

To assess effectiveness and tolerability of first-line and conversion to lacosamide monotherapy for focal seizures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective, non-interventional chart review of lacosamide monotherapy patients aged ≥16 years in Europe. Outcomes included retention rate at observational point (OP) 3 (12 ± 3 months), seizure freedom rates at OP2 (6 ± 3 months) and OP3 and adverse drug reactions (ADRs).

RESULTS

A total of 439 patients were included (98 first-line and 341 conversion to monotherapy; 128 aged ≥65 years [25 first-line and 103 conversion to monotherapy]). First-line and conversion to monotherapy retention rates were 60.2% (59/98; 95% confidence interval [CI] 49.8%-70.0%) and 62.5% (213/341; 57.1%-67.6%), respectively. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 12-month retention rates were 81.2% and 91.4% for first-line and conversion to monotherapy, respectively. First-line and conversion to monotherapy retention rates in patients aged ≥65 years were 60.0% (38.7%-78.9%) and 68.9% (59.1%-77.7%), respectively. At OP2, 66.3% of first-line and 63.0% of conversion to monotherapy patients were seizure free. At OP3, 60.2% of first-line and 52.5% of conversion to monotherapy patients were seizure free. In the ≥65 years subgroup, seizure freedom rates at OP2 were 72.0% and 68.0% for first-line and converted to monotherapy, respectively, and at OP3, 68.0% and 56.3%, respectively. Overall, 52 of 439 (11.8%) patients reported ADRs (16.4% in ≥65 years subgroup), most commonly dizziness (5.0%), headache (2.1%) and somnolence (1.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Lacosamide was effective and well tolerated as first-line or conversion to monotherapy in a clinical setting in adult and elderly patients with focal seizures.

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.

Wake up to sleep: The effects of lacosamide on daytime sleepiness in adults with epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to investigate the effects of lacosamide (LCM) on daytime sleepiness ascertained by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) in adults with focal epilepsy in a randomized, controlled design.

METHODS

Subjects taking ≤2 AEDs for ≥4weeks underwent polysomnography with EEG followed by the maintenance of wakefulness test (MWT) and completed the ESS and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at baseline, LCM 200mg/day, and LCM 400mg/day (Visit 4; V4). Primary endpoint was ESS change (V4 to baseline) between LCM and placebo. Noninferiority test on ESS used a one-sided t-test based on a hypothesized difference of 4-point change between groups. Superiority test used a two-sided t-test to investigate the difference in change in PROs and MWT mean sleep latency (MSL) between groups. Fifty-five subjects provided 80% power to show noninferiority of LCM assuming 10% dropout.

RESULTS

Fifty-two subjects (mean age: 43.5±13.2years, 69% female, median monthly seizure frequency: 1 [0, 4.0]) participated. Baseline group characteristics including age, sex, ethnicity, standardized AED dose, seizure frequency, and ESS were similar. Abnormal baseline ESS scores were found in 35% of subjects. Noninferiority test found a ≤4-point increase in ESS (mean [95% CI]) in LCM subjects vs. placebo (-1.2 [-2.9, 0.53] vs. -1.1 [-5.2, 3.0], p=0.027) at V4. No significant difference in change in PROs, MSL, seizure frequency, or AED standardized dose was observed between groups.

SIGNIFICANCE

Our interventional trial found that LCM is not a major contributor to daytime sleepiness based on subjective and objective measures. Inclusion of sleepiness measures in AED trials is warranted given the high prevalence of sleep-wake complaints in people with epilepsy.

Selecting Rational Drug Combinations in Epilepsy

Monotherapy remains the standard initial therapy of epilepsy, but when the first antiepileptic drug (AED) fails, combination therapy may be considered. The choice of combination therapy should take into consideration pharmacokinetic interactions, as well as pharmacodynamic interactions related to mechanism of action. There is evidence that an AED combination with different mechanisms of action is more likely to be successful than a combination with the same mechanisms. The combination of lamotrigine and valproate has been demonstrated to be synergistic in its efficacy. However, there are limited data to support other synergistic AED combinations.

Pharmacological Treatment of Drug-Resistant Epilepsy in Adults: a Practical Guide

More than 30 % of adults with epilepsy do not fully control on the currently available antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). For these and many other patients, combinations of agents, often possessing different mechanisms of actions, are employed with the aim of achieving seizure freedom or the best available prognosis in terms of reduced seizure numbers and severity. This review discusses my own approach to optimising outcomes in as many of these patients as possible by adjusting the drug burden using a combination of two, three or sometimes four or more AEDs. Modes of drug action are reviewed and practical strategies for treating different patients with drug-resistant epilepsy have been explored. Only for sodium valproate with lamotrigine is there good evidence of synergism. The final part of this practical paper consists of six individual illustrative cases with appropriate comments.

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.

Psychiatric side effects and antiepileptic drugs: Observations from prospective audits

Psychiatric comorbidities are common in people with epilepsy. A retrospective study of characteristics associated with withdrawal due to psychiatric side effects was undertaken in patients with treated epilepsy participating in prospective audits with new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). A total of 1058 treated patients with uncontrolled seizures (942 focal-onset seizures, 116 generalized genetic epilepsies [GGEs]) participated in eight prospective, observational audits from 1996 to 2014. These patients were prescribed adjunctive topiramate (n=170), levetiracetam (n=220), pregabalin (n=135), zonisamide (n=203), lacosamide (n=160), eslicarbazepine acetate (n=52), retigabine (n=64), or perampanel (n=54). Doses were titrated according to efficacy and tolerability to optimize zeizure outcomes and reduce side effects. Psychiatric comorbidities were recorded prior to and after the addition of each AED. At baseline, patients with focal-onset seizures (189 of 942; 20.1%) were statistically more likely to have psychiatric diagnoses compared to patients with GGEs (14 of 116, 12.1%; p=0.039). Following adjunctive AED treatment, neuropsychiatric adverse effects led to AED withdrawal in 1.9-16.7% of patients. Patients with a pre-treatment psychiatric history (22 of 209; 10.5%) were statistically more likely to discontinue their new AED due to psychiatric issues compared to patients with no previous psychiatric diagnosis (50 of 849; 5.9%; p=0.017). Patients receiving sodium channel blocking AEDs (4 of 212, 1.9%) were statistically less likely to develop intolerable psychiatric problems, compared to those on AEDs possessing other mechanisms of action (68 of 846, 8.0%; p=0.012). Depression was the commonest problem, leading to discontinuation of AEDs in 2.8% (n=30) patients. Aggression was statistically more common in men (11 of 527, 2.1%) compared to women (1 of 531, 0.2%; p=0.004). Patients with learning disability (12 of 122, 9.8%; p=0.0015) were statistically less likely to have psychiatric issues prior to adjunctive AED treatment compared to other patients (208 of 936, 22.2%), but there were no statistically significant differences once the new AEDs were added (8 of 122 patients with learning disability, 6.6%; 64 of 936 other patients, 6.8%). Awareness of these issues may assist clinicians in avoiding, identifying and treating psychiatric comorbidities in people with epilepsy.

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.

Tolerability and Safety of Commonly Used Antiepileptic Drugs in Adolescents and Adults: A Clinician's Overview

This paper discusses the issues surrounding the tolerability and safety of the commonly used antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in adolescents and adults. The content includes dose-related adverse effects, idiosyncratic reactions, behavioural and psychiatric comorbidities, chronic problems, enzyme induction and teratogenesis. Twenty-one AEDs are discussed in chronological order of their introduction into the UK, starting with phenobarbital and ending with brivaracetam. Wherever possible, advice is given on anticipating, recognising and managing these issues and thereby improving the lives of people with epilepsy, most of whom will need to take one or more of these agents for life. Avoidance of side effects will increase the possibility of achieving and maintaining long-term seizure freedom. Alternatively, adverse events from AEDs will substantially reduce quality of life and often result in higher healthcare costs.

Lacosamide use in children with epilepsy: Retention rate and effect of concomitant sodium channel blockers in a large cohort

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of lacosamide (LCM) in pediatric patients, using time to treatment failure as the outcome measure, and to assess the impact of concomitant sodium channel blocker (SCB) use on LCM retention.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients <21 years old receiving LCM from 2010 to 2015. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated for time to LCM failure, defined as discontinuation of LCM or addition of another antiepileptic therapy. The impact of concomitant use of traditional SCB agents (phenytoin, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and/or lamotrigine) and other factors including age, seizure types, fast drug titration, and prior antiepileptic drug history were evaluated using Cox regression.

RESULTS

The analysis cohort included 223 patients, of whom 116 were taking one or more SCBs, with median follow-up of 7.4 months (1-53 months). For all patients, the probability of remaining on LCM without addition of another therapy was 44.7% at 12 months and 25.6% at 24 months. Concomitant SCB use was an independent predictor of time to LCM failure (hazard ratio [HR] 1.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.38-2.65, p < 0.001).Although treatment emergent adverse effects were reported more often in patients taking SCB (65% vs. 39%, p < 0.001), intolerability was rarely the sole reason cited for LCM discontinuation, and SCB use was strongly associated with LCM failure, even when controlling for presence of treatment emergent adverse effects (adjusted HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.36-2.90, p < 0.001).

SIGNIFICANCE

This study provides observational evidence for treatment persistence of LCM in children, in a large cohort with long-term follow-up, using time to treatment failure as the outcome measure. Concomitant SCB use was a key factor increasing risk of LCM failure, but not due to treatment-emergent adverse effects alone.

Prospective audit with adjunctive perampanel: Preliminary observations in focal epilepsy

PURPOSE

Perampanel (PER) was first licensed in the United Kingdom in 2012 for the adjunctive treatment of focal seizures with or without secondary generalization in adults and children over 12years of age. It has recently also been approved for use as add-on therapy for patients with primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures. This prospective audit reports preliminary outcomes with adjunctive PER in patients with focal-onset seizures in everyday clinical practice using a standard design.

METHODS

To date, 54 patients (38 males, 16 females; 21-65years, median: 48years) have completed the study. The median monthly seizure frequency was 4 (range: 1-60). At baseline, patients were taking a median of 2 other antiepileptic drugs (range: 1-4 drugs), with their seizures having previously failed to improve on a median of 3 schedules (range: 1-15 schedules). After 12weeks of stable dosing, PER was added, aiming at a target range of 6-12mg/daily. Review took place every 6-8weeks until one of 4 endpoints was reached: seizure freedom for ≥6months on a given PER dose, ≥50% (responder) or <50% (marginal effect) seizure reduction over 6months, compared with the prospective baseline, on the highest tolerated PER dose, or withdrawal of PER due to a lack of efficacy or side effects.

RESULTS

Three (5.6%) patients have remained seizure-free, with 8 (14.8%) demonstrating a ≥50% response and a further 17 (31.5%) reporting a marginal effect. Of the 26 (48.1%) dropping out of PER treatment, 21 (38.9%) did so because of side effects. The commonest problems were nausea, vomiting, ataxia, dizziness, and sedation. Overall, 6 (11%) patients developed neuropsychiatric problems, with 3 reporting irritability and/or aggression. Two patients had substantial weight gain, and another patient suffered recurrent falls. Treatment with enzyme-inducing AEDs had no effect on PER dosing in patients responding to PER or withdrawing due to side effects.

SIGNIFICANCE

These data support the value of adjunctive PER in some patients with pharmacoresistant epilepsy in everyday clinical practice.

Practical Use of Newer Antiepileptic Drugs as Adjunctive Therapy in Focal Epilepsy

This article lays the background for, and discusses the practical issues surrounding, the adjunctive use of the last four antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) to be licensed for the treatment of pharmacoresistant focal seizures in the UK and elsewhere. More than 30% of adolescent and adult patients will not be fully controlled on the currently available therapeutic armamentarium. After not responding to their first three AED schedules, only a handful of patients attained seizure freedom on subsequent regimens. To optimise the response to any new AED in this setting, it is often necessary to reduce the existing drug burden. The pharmacology, tolerability and safety, and everyday use of lacosamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, retigabine (ezogabine) and perampanel will be reviewed and discussed. This will be accompanied by data from prospective audits with each drug undertaken at the Western Infirmary in Glasgow, Scotland, and a report of their successful introduction in an illustrative case. Overall, there is a large variation in the course of refractory epilepsy and the effect of AED therapy on this process seems minimal. Nevertheless, a number of patients will benefit from the introduction of each new AED, with some becoming seizure-free.

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.

Efficacy and safety of lacosamide as first add-on or later adjunctive treatment for uncontrolled partial-onset seizures: A multicentre open-label trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lacosamide administered as either first add-on or later add-on antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy for patients with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures (POS).

METHODS

In this open-label, multicentre trial, patients with POS initiated oral lacosamide (titrated to 400 mg/day) either as add-on to first AED monotherapy, or as later add-on to 1-3 concomitant AEDs after ≥ 2 previous AEDs. The primary efficacy variable was the proportion of patients achieving seizure freedom for the first 12 weeks of the 24-week Maintenance Phase.

RESULTS

456 patients received ≥ 1 dose of lacosamide (96 as first add-on, 360 as later add-on). In the first add-on cohort, 27/72 (37.5%) patients completed 12 weeks treatment and remained seizure-free; 18/68 (26.5%) remained seizure-free after 24 weeks. 64/91 (70.3%) patients achieved ≥ 50% reduction in seizure frequency during maintenance treatment. This was accompanied by a mean 7.1 ± 16.00 point improvement from Baseline in the Quality of Life Inventory in Epilepsy (QOLIE-31-P) total score for 24-week completers, with improvement reported in all subscales. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were dizziness (31.3%) and headache (13.5%). In the later add-on cohort, 39/261 (14.9%) and 29/249 (11.6%) patients remained seizure-free after completing 12 and 24 weeks' treatment, respectively. 178/353 (50.4%) patients achieved ≥ 50% reduction in seizure frequency during maintenance treatment. Mean change in QOLIE-31-P total score was 4.8 ± 14.74 points among 24-week completers. Common TEAEs were dizziness (33.6%), somnolence (15.0%) and headache (11.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Lacosamide initiated as first add-on treatment was efficacious and well tolerated in patients with uncontrolled POS.

Lacosamide use in the treatment of refractory epilepsy in tuberous sclerosis complex

Lacosamide (LCS) was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2008 as adjunctive therapy to other anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) to treat focal-onset seizures, with or without secondary generalization. Its role in the treatment of epilepsy in individuals with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) has yet to be determined. This study evaluates LCS treatment of focal-onset refractory epilepsy in patients with TSC. From November 2009 to June 2014, 46 TSC patients followed by a single neurologist were treated with LCS. Forty-eight percent were responders (seizure reduction ≥50%). No significant differences between responders and non-responders in demographic characteristics were found. LCS appears to be an effective and safe treatment of refractory focal onset seizures in TSC. Determining the long-term tolerability and efficacy of LCS in TSC patients requires additional clinical experience.

Early add-on lacosamide in a real-life setting: results of the REALLY study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Many patients with epilepsy are treated with antiepileptic drug (AED) polytherapy. Several factors influence the choice of early add-on therapy, and deciding on the most appropriate drug can be difficult. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide as early add-on therapy in patients with partial-onset seizures.

METHODS

REALLY (REtrospective study of lAcosamide as earLy add-on aLong one Year) was a multicenter, retrospective, 1-year, real-life study. Patients included were aged older than 16 years, had partial-onset seizures, and were treated with lacosamide as add-on therapy after one or two prior AEDs. Data were collected retrospectively from clinical records. The primary study objective was to assess the efficacy of lacosamide over 12 months (seizure-free and responder rates), and the secondary objective was to assess the tolerability of lacosamide at 3, 6, and 12 months [adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation].

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety-nine patients were enrolled in the study; 89 patients (44.7 %) had tried one AED and 110 patients (55.3 %) had tried two AEDs before lacosamide. At 12 months, the proportion of patients who were seizure free was 44.9 %, and 76 % of patients were responders. The seizure-free rate at 12 months for patients who had previously received one or two AEDs was 58 and 34.3 %, and the responder rate at 12 months was 83.0 and 70.4 %, respectively. The AE rate was 21.5 % at 3 months, 27.1 % at 6 months, and 31.2 % at 12 months, with 7.0 % of patients discontinuing treatment because of an AE. The most common AE reported was dizziness (11.6 %). Cryptogenic epilepsy, a higher number of prior AEDs, and the use of a sodium channel blocker at onset were associated with a worse outcome. The number of concomitant AEDs decreased over 1 year (Z = 5.89; p < 0.001). Twenty-two patients were converted to lacosamide monotherapy with at least one evaluation ≥6 months from the beginning of monotherapy conversion.

CONCLUSIONS

Lacosamide was effective and well tolerated as early add-on treatment in patients who had received one or two previous AEDs.