Lacosamide in the treatment of acute recurrent seizures and periodic epileptiform patterns in critically ill patients

Intravenous Lacosamide in Seizure Clusters: Dose and Efficacy

PURPOSE

The objective of our study was to evaluate the relationship between the loading dose and efficacy of lacosamide (LCM), when used in seizure clusters (SCs).

METHODS

A cohort of patients with SC treated with intravenous (IV)-LCM between September 2017 and September 2019 was retrospectively examined. Demographic data, type of seizure emergency, etiology, response rate, previous oral antiepileptic drugs used, total LCM loading dose, and side effects were reviewed.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine cases of epileptic emergencies treated with IV LCM were collected. The mean age was 59.25 years (18-88 years), and the median loading dose was 136.5 mg (100-300 mg) with a response rate in the whole population of 29.2%. Nine patients received a loading dose of 200 to 300 mg, and their response rate was 89%. Common side effects (drowsiness and dizziness) were mild. No electrocardiogram changes or other cardiovascular side effects, or unexpected side effects were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

In adults with SC, a loading dose of IV LCM of 200 mg or more achieved 89% response rate in this cohort. Loading doses of less than 300 mg caused mild side effects only.

Epileptic Seizures in Critically Ill Patients: Diagnosis, Management, and Outcomes

Epileptic seizures in critically ill patients represent a major source of concern, because they are associated with significant mortality and morbidity rates. Despite recent advances that have enabled a better understanding of the global epidemiology of this entity, epileptic seizures in critically ill patients remain associated with a high degree of uncertainty and numerous questions remain unanswered. The present Special Issue aims to invite authors to contribute original research articles as well as review articles related to all aspects of epileptic seizures in critically ill patients, diagnosis, management, and outcomes.

Use of Newer Anticonvulsants for the Treatment of Status Epilepticus

Status epilepticus (SE) has a high mortality rate and is one of the most common neurologic emergencies. Fast progression of this neurologic emergency and lack of response to traditional antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in most cases has challenged clinicians to use new agents. This article evaluates the efficacy and safety of AEDs released to the market after 2000 for SE, refractory status epilepticus (RSE), and super-refractory status epilepticus (SRSE). The PubMed database was searched for clinical trials published between January 2000 and July 2018 using the search terms status epilepticus, refractory status epilepticus, super refractory status epilepticus, brivaracetam, clobazam, cannabidiol, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, perampanel, rufinamide, stiripentol, and zonisamide. Trials that evaluated these agents in adults with SE, RSE, and SRSE were included. Brivaracetam use was identified in two retrospective reviews with success rates of 27% and 57%. One unsuccessful case report of cannabidiol use in SE was found. Four clobazam studies were identified in SE and RSE with success rates ranging from 25-100%. No evidence for the use of eslicarbazepine and zonisamide was found. Using the search terms for lacosamide identified 38 articles: 1 systematic review, 5 prospective studies, 15 retrospective reviews, and 17 case reports. Success rates and dosing varied, but studies that included focal or partial types of SE showed higher success rates. Five articles were identified regarding perampanel use in this setting. Three were retrospective reviews with success rates ranging from 17-60%, and two were case reports. Only one case report regarding the use of rufinamide was found; rufinamide titrated up to 4.4 mg/day allowed discontinuation of barbiturate and clobazam. One case report and two case series of stiripentol were found with reported efficacy between 60% and 100% in SRSE. Evidence is currently insufficient to support the use of these agents in this setting.

Comparison of lacosamide versus sodium valproate in status epilepticus: A pilot study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of lacosamide (LCM) and sodium valproate (SVA) in lorazepam (LOR)-resistant SE.

METHODS

Patients with LOR-resistant SE were randomized to intravenous LCM 400mg at the rate of 60mg/kg/min or SVA 30mg/kg at the rate of 100mg/min. The SE severity score (STESS), duration of SE and its etiology, and MRI findings were noted. Primary outcome was seizure cessation for 1h, and secondary outcomes were 24h seizure remission, in-hospital death, and severe adverse events (SAE).

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients were included, and their median age was 40 (range 18-90) years. Thirty-three patients each received LCM and SVA. Their demographic, clinical, STESS, etiology, and MRI findings were not significantly different. One-hour seizure remission was not significantly different between LCM and SVA groups (66.7% vs 69.7%; P=0.79). Twenty-four-hour seizure freedom was insignificantly higher in SVA (20, 66.6%) compared with LCM group (15, 45.5%). Death (10 vs 12) and composite side effects (4 vs 6) were also not significantly different in LCM and SVA groups. LCM was associated with hypotension and bradycardia (1 patient), and SVA with liver dysfunction (6).

CONCLUSION

In patients with LOR-resistant SE, both LCM and SVA have comparable efficacy and safety.

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.

A randomized controlled trial of lacosamide versus sodium valproate in status epilepticus

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of lacosamide (LCM) and sodium valproate (SVA) in lorazepam (LOR)-resistant status epilepticus (SE).

METHODS

Patients with LOR-resistant SE were randomized to intravenous LCM 400 mg at a rate of 60 mg/kg/min or SVA 30 mg/kg at a rate of 100 mg/min. The SE severity score (STESS), duration of SE and its etiology, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings were noted. Primary outcome was seizure cessation for 1 h, and secondary outcomes were 24 h seizure remission, in hospital death and severe adverse events (SAEs).

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients were included, and their median age was 40 (range 18-90) years. Thirty-three patients each received LCM and SVA. Their demographic, clinical, STESS, etiology, and MRI findings were not significantly different. One hour seizure remission was not significantly different between LCM and SVA groups (66.7% vs. 69.7%; p = 0.79). Twenty-four hour seizure freedom was higher in SVA (20, 66.6%) compared with LCM group (15, 45.5%), but this difference was not statistically significant. Death (10 vs. 12) and composite side effects (4 vs. 6) were also not significantly different in LCM and SVA groups. LCM was associated with hypotension and bradycardia (one patient), and SVA with liver dysfunction (six patients).

SIGNIFICANCE

In LOR-resistant SE patients, both LCM and SVA have comparable efficacy and safety. SVA resulted in slightly better 24 h seizure remission.

Intravenous lacosamide in seizure emergencies: Observations from a hospitalized in-patient adult population

PURPOSE

to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) lacosamide (LCM) in the treatment of seizure clusters (SC) and status epilepticus (SE) in hospitalized adult patients.

METHODS

we prospectively analyzed treatment response, seizure outcome, and adverse effects of IV LCM in 38 patients with seizure emergencies (15 with SC, 23 with SE) during a hospital stay. The loading dose of IV LCM was 200-400mg and the maintenance dose was 200-400mg daily. Response to IV LCM was evaluated within 20min, 4h and 24h of LCM infusion.

RESULTS

an acute anti-seizure effect after IV LCM was especially evident when it was first used - (SC) or second line (established SE) treatment. In particular, 87% of SC patients (13/15) and 80% of established SE (8/10) demonstrated response to LCM treatment, while no patients with super-refractory SE (0/8) responded to IV LCM according to our criteria. The loading of IV LCM was well tolerated, with mild adverse effects (2/38 temporary dizziness). In most patients, during and after administration of the loading dose of IV LCM a temporary (30min-1h) sedation was observed. No ECG and laboratory values-changes were documented in any of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

LCM is an effective and well-tolerated treatment when used to treat SC in hospitalized adult patients. As add-on therapy, it may be useful to stop seizure activity in patients with focal SE not responding to first/second-line intravenous AEDs.

Usefulness of intravenous lacosamide in status epilepticus

Lacosamide (LCM) is a treatment option for status epilepticus (SE) described in several series. We therefore proposed to describe its use in status epilepticus patients in our hospital. All patients admitted to our hospital for SE from September 2010 to April 2012 were evaluated. We collected related variables including the type of SE, etiology, antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) used, loading dose of AEDs, cessation of SE after AEDs, ICU admission and mortality. In those patients receiving LCM, we reviewed the infusion rate and time to response. We compared patients receiving LCM with patients in whom it was not used. This was a retrospective and uncontrolled study. A total of 92 patients were included; 67.7 % of SE patients who received LCM responded to treatment. The vast majority of the patients presented non-convulsive and motor focal SE. When we selected patients to receive four or more AEDs, the LCM efficacy was 55.6 %, a very similar result compared to when it was not used. Subsequently, we analyzed the sample regarding the AED administered as the second or third line of treatment, and the responder rate was significantly higher when LCM was used (84.6 vs. 47.8 %, p 0.041). After an adjusted regression analysis, the use of LCM was independently associated with cessation of SE. The total percentage of undesirable effects was very low (12 %), and they were all mild. No relationship was found between a specific etiology and better response. LCM is a useful drug that represents an alternative in the treatment of non-convulsive or focal motor SE. Its efficacy might be more important when it is administered as a second or third option after benzodiazepines. A randomized trial is required to confirm these results.

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.

Efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide in the concomitant treatment of 130 patients under 16 years of age with refractory epilepsy: a prospective, open-label, observational, multicenter study in Spain

Background

The safety and effectiveness of lacosamide, an antiepileptic drug (AED) that selectively enhances the slow inactivation of voltage-gated sodium channels without affecting rapid inactivation, has been demonstrated in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in adults with focal epileptic seizures. Although lacosamide is approved for use in patients over 16 years of age, limited clinical experience exists for younger patients.

Objective

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide in children with refractory epilepsy.

Design/Methods

The trial was a prospective, open-label, observational, multicenter study. A total of 130 patients aged less than 16 years (range 6 months to 16 years) with refractory epilepsy who had initiated treatment with lacosamide were enrolled at 18 neuropediatric units in hospitals across Spain. Patients with a variety of etiologies were enrolled, including those with partial epilepsies and symptomatic, generalized epilepsy syndromes. Lacosamide (VIMPAT®; UCB Pharma SA, Brussels, Belgium) was primarily administered once every 12 hours as an oral solution or as an oral tablet, with an initial dose of 1–2 mg/kg/day in the majority of cases. The majority of patients were also receiving stable concomitant therapy with ≥1 other AED. Treatment response to lacosamide was determined by assessing the change in seizure frequency after 3 months of lacosamide therapy. Responders were defined as patients who achieved a seizure frequency reduction of >50%. Tolerability was assessed by the reporting of adverse effects, laboratory testing, and electroencephalography recordings.

Results

Lacosamide was dosed at a mean of 6.80 ± 2.39 mg/kg/day. After 3 months of lacosamide therapy, 62.3% of patients achieved a >50% reduction in seizure frequency, with complete seizure suppression being reported in 13.8% of patients. Adverse effects occurred in 39 patients (30%), but no dose-response relationship was observed in terms of these events. In ten patients, instability, difficulty walking, an inability to relate to subjective elements, and blurred vision or dizziness were reported. A total of 13 patients discontinued treatment — in five of these patients, symptom intensity remained unchanged despite dose reduction, which led to treatment discontinuation. The symptoms were markedly different in each patient, preventing determination of a causal factor(s).

Conclusions

The results of this study provide preliminary evidence for the efficacy of lacosamide in children with refractory epilepsy. Further evaluation in a randomized, controlled trial is needed to validate the efficacy in this population and to fully investigate the adverse effects described here. We recommend an initial dose of 1–2 mg/kg/day, uptitrated to 6–9 mg/kg/day over 4–6 weeks.

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.

Low-dose lacosamide-induced atrial fibrillation: Case analysis with literature review

Lacosamide (LCM) is a novel antiepileptic drug (AED) approved by the FDA for adjunctive treatment of partial epilepsy with and without secondary generalization. Lacosamide dose-dependent dysrhythmias (PR-interval prolongation, AV block, and atrial fibrillation/flutter) have been reported. This case represents the first instance of LCM-induced atrial fibrillation following a low loading dose (200 mg). Risk factors for atrial fibrillation are addressed and discussed in the context of this case. Full cardiac history is recommended prior to patients being initiated on LCM. Cardiac monitoring may be required for at-risk patients on LCM. Clinicians need to be cognizant of this potential adverse effect.

Periodic EEG patterns: importance of their recognition and clinical significance

Periodic electroencephalographic (EEG) patterns consist of discharges usually epileptiform in appearance, which occur at regular intervals, in critical patients. They are commonly classified as periodic lateralized epileptiform discharges (PLEDs), bilateral independent PLEDs or BIPLEDs, generalized epileptiform discharges (GPEDs) and triphasic waves. Stimulus-induced rhythmic, periodic or ictal discharges (SIRPIDs) are peculiar EEG patterns, which may be present as periodic discharges. The aim of this study is to make a review of the periodic EEG patterns, emphasizing the importance of their recognition and clinical significance. The clinical significance of the periodic EEG patterns is uncertain, it is related to a variety of etiologies, and many authors suggest that these patterns are unequivocally epileptogenic in some cases. Their recognition and classification are important to establish an accurate correlation between clinical, neurological, laboratorial and neuroimaging data with the EEG results.

Safety and efficacy of lacosamide in the intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Seizures are common in critically ill patients and can impact morbidity and mortality. Traditional anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) in this setting are not always effective and are associated with adverse events and drug interactions. Lacosamide (LCM) is a new AED which is available in parental form although few studies have evaluated the safety and efficacy of LCM in critically ill patients.

METHODS

Critically ill patients at Emory University Hospital who received LCM from April 1, 2009 to February 1, 2010 were retrospectively reviewed. Primary outcome measure was incidence and time to seizure cessation. Adverse effects were also recorded.

RESULTS

LCM was administered in 24 patients including 13 episodes of refractory status epilepticus (RSE) occurring in 10 patients and for treatment of isolated seizures or following resolution of RSE in an additional 14 patients. Seizure cessation was achieved in 5/13 (38%) episodes of RSE (mean 11.2 h) while there was at least a 50% decrease in seizure frequency in 7/13 (54%). 11/14 patients (76%) who received LCM for treatment of isolated seizures or prevention of seizure recurrence remained seizure free. Three patients experienced a decline in systolic blood pressure (> 20 mmHg) while one patient experienced unexplained fever and one patient had elevation of liver function tests.

CONCLUSIONS

This preliminary data suggests that LCM may be a safe and effective alternative for treatment of seizures in critically ill patients. Further prospective, randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and further explore the incidence of adverse effects.

Pharmacotherapy of the third-generation AEDs: lacosamide, retigabine and eslicarbazepine acetate

INTRODUCTION

The search for new, more effective antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) continues. The three most recently approved drugs, the so-called third-generation AEDs, include lacosamide, retigabine and eslicarbazepine acetate and are licensed as adjunctive treatment of partial epilepsy in adults.

AREAS COVERED

For the above three AEDs, their mechanisms of action, pharmacokinetic characteristics, drug-drug interactions, pharmacotherapeutics, dose and administration and therapeutic drug monitoring are reviewed in this paper.

EXPERT OPINION

Lacosamide and retigabine act through novel mechanisms, while eslicarbazepine acetate, a pro-drug for eslicarbazepine, acts in a similar manner to several other AEDs. All three AEDs are associated with linear pharmacokinetic and rapid absorption and undergo metabolism. Their drug-drug interaction profile is low (lacosamide and retigabine) to modest (eslicarbazepine) in propensity. At the highest approved doses for the three AEDs, responder rates were similar. The most commonly observed adverse effects compared with placebo were dizziness, headache, diplopia and nausea for lacosamide; dizziness, somnolence and fatigue for retigabine and dizziness and somnolence for eslicarbazepine acetate. The precise role that these new AEDs will have in the treatment of epilepsy and whether they will make a significant impact on the prognosis of intractable epilepsy is not yet known and will have to await further clinical experience.

What is the evidence to use new intravenous AEDs in status epilepticus?

Current standard treatment of established status epilepticus after failure of benzodiazepines is intravenous phenytoin/fosphenytoin, phenobarbital, or valproate. Since 2006 two new antiseizure drugs have become available as intravenous formulation: levetiracetam (2006) and lacosamide (2008). Both drugs have been taken up very rapidly by the clinicians to treat acute seizures and status epilepticus, despite lack of evidence from randomized controlled trials. The favorable pharmacokinetic profile and the good tolerability, especially the lack of sedating effects of both drugs make them promising potential alternatives to the standard antiseizure drugs. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to inform clinicians better about the best choice of treatment in established status epilepticus. The experimental evidence as well as the current clinical experience with levetiracetam and lacosamide are summarized in this review.

Intravenous lacosamide in status epilepticus and seizure clusters

Status epilepticus (SE) and seizure clusters (SC) represent neurologic emergencies with a case fatality rate up to 34%, depending on cause and comorbidity. As SE becomes more refractory to treatment over time, appropriate medication is important. This study aimed to investigate efficacy and tolerability of intravenous (IV) lacosamide (LCM) in treatment of SC and SE. Data of patients with SE or SC who were treated with IV LCM between December 2009 and February 2011 in two Austrian centers were analyzed retrospectively. Clinical information was extracted from patients' charts. Forty-eight patients (26f/22m) aged median 62 years (range 17-95 years) were identified. Thirty-five percent of patients (17 of 48) had SC and 65% (31 of 48) had SE. SE was nonconvulsive in 10 (32%), convulsive in 11 (36%), and focal in 10 (32%) patients. SE was acute symptomatic in six (20%) and remote symptomatic in 11 (35%) patients. Fourteen (45%) had preexisting epilepsy. Median initial bolus dose was 200 mg (range 200-400 mg) in patients with SE and 200 mg in patients with SC. Maximum infusion rate was 60 mg/min. Cessation was observed in 42 patients (88%). Success rate in patients with SE receiving LCM as first or second drug was 100% (8 of 8), as third drug 81% (11 of 15), and as fourth or later drug 75% (6 of 8). There were no side effects observed except for pruritus and skin rash in two patients. These data support use of IV LCM as a potential alternative to standard antiepileptic drugs for acute treatment of seizure emergency situations, although randomized controlled studies are needed.