A long-term noninterventional safety study of adjunctive lacosamide therapy in patients with epilepsy and uncontrolled partial-onset seizures

[Guidelines for the management of adverse effects of anti-seizure medications (2023)]

Epilepsy is a prevalent neurological disorder with a complex etiology and an unclear pathogenesis. In order to standardize the management of adverse effects caused by anti-seizure medications (ASMs), the Youth Committee of the Chinese Association Against Epilepsy (CAAE), in collaboration with the CAAE Precision Medicines and Adverse Effect Monitoring Committee, has developed a guideline: guidelines for the management of adverse effects of anti-seizure medications (2023). This guideline addresses 13 clinical questions related to the management of adverse effects of ASMs in the nervous system, cardiovascular system, and fetus. Its primary objective is to provide guidance to medical professionals specializing in pediatric neurology, neurology, and neurosurgery in China, and to facilitate their clinical practice.

The therapeutic effects of lacosamide on epilepsy-associated comorbidities

Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder associated with severe social and psychological effects, and most epilepsy patients often report at least one comorbidity. Accumulating evidence have suggested that lacosamide, a new generation of anti-seizure medications, may exhibit efficacy in the management of both epilepsy and its related comorbidities. Therefore, this narrative review aimed to elucidate the recent advancements regarding the therapeutic role of lacosamide in epilepsy-associated comorbidities. The possible pathophysiological mechanisms between epilepsy and epilepsy-associated comorbidities have been also partially described. Whether lacosamide improves cognitive and behavioral functions in patients with epilepsy has not been conclusively established. Some studies support that lacosamide may alleviate anxiety and depression in epilepsy patients. In addition, lacosamide has been found to be safe and effective in the treatment of epilepsy in people with intellectual disabilities, epilepsy of cerebrovascular etiology, and epilepsy associated with brain tumors. Moreover, lacosamide treatment has demonstrated fewer side effects on other systems. Hence, future larger and higher quality clinical studies are needed to further explore both the safety and efficacy of lacosamide in the treatment of epilepsy-associated comorbidities.

PROVE: retrospective, non-interventional, Phase IV study of perampanel in real-world clinical care of patients with epilepsy

Objective

To assess retention, dosing, efficacy, and safety of perampanel in a large cohort of patients with epilepsy during routine clinical care.

Methods

PROVE was a retrospective, non‐interventional Phase IV study (NCT03208660). Data were obtained retrospectively from the medical records of patients in the United States initiating perampanel after January 1, 2014, according to treating clinicians' recommendation. Retention rate was the primary efficacy endpoint. Secondary efficacy endpoints included median percent changes in seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline, seizure‐freedom rate, and overall investigator impression of seizure effect. Safety endpoints included incidence of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Efficacy and safety were also assessed according to baseline use of enzyme‐inducing antiseizure medications (EIASMs).

Results

Overall, 1703 patients were enrolled and included in the Safety Analysis Set (SAS; ≥1 baseline EIASMs, n = 358 [21.0%]; no baseline EIASMs, n = 1345 [79.0%]). Mean (standard deviation [SD]) cumulative duration of exposure to perampanel was 17.4 (15.7) months; mean (SD) daily perampanel dose was 5.6 (2.7) mg. The most frequent perampanel titration intervals were weekly (23.4%) and every 2 weeks (24.7%). Across the SAS, 24‐month retention rate was 48.1% (n = 501/1042). Based on overall investigator impression at the end of treatment, 51.9%, 35.8%, and 12.3% of patients in the SAS experienced improvement, no change, or worsening of seizures, respectively. TEAEs occurred in 704 (41.3%) patients; 79 (4.6%) had serious TEAEs. The most common TEAE was dizziness (7.3%). There was some variation in efficacy according to EIASM use, while retention rates and safety were generally consistent.

Significance

In this final analysis of >1700 patients with epilepsy receiving perampanel in routine clinical care, favorable retention and sustained efficacy were demonstrated for ≥12 months.

The effectiveness of antiepileptic drug treatment in glioma patients: lamotrigine versus lacosamide

Purpose

Optimal treatment with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is an important part of care for brain tumor patients with epileptic seizures. Lamotrigine and lacosamide are both examples of frequently used non-enzyme inducing AEDs with limited to no drug-drug interactions, reducing the risk of unfavorable side effects. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of lamotrigine versus lacosamide.

Methods

In this multicenter study we retrospectively analyzed data of patients with diffuse grade 2–4 glioma with epileptic seizures. All patients received either lamotrigine or lacosamide during the course of their disease after treatment failure of first-line monotherapy with levetiracetam or valproic acid. Primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of treatment failure, from initiation of lamotrigine or lacosamide, with death as competing event, for which a competing risk model was used. Secondary outcomes were uncontrolled seizures after AED initiation and level of toxicity.

Results

We included a total of 139 patients of whom 61 (44%) used lamotrigine and 78 (56%) used lacosamide. At 12 months, there was no statistically significant difference in the cumulative incidence of treatment failure for any reason between lamotrigine and lacosamide: 38% (95%CI 26–51%) versus 30% (95%CI 20–41%), respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio for treatment failure of lacosamide compared to lamotrigine was 0.84 (95%CI 0.46–1.56). The cumulative incidences of treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures (18% versus 11%) and due to adverse events (17% versus 19%) did not differ significantly between lamotrigine and lacosamide.

Conclusion

Lamotrigine and lacosamide show similar effectiveness in diffuse glioma patients with epilepsy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11060-021-03800-z.

The effects of lacosamide on cognitive function and psychiatric profiles in patients with epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Cognitive and psychiatric problems are common in people with epilepsy. They can have multiple causes, including structural brain lesions, the active epilepsy, and the effect of anti-epileptic therapy. Since patients' treatment compliance and quality of life are affected by cognitive and emotional status, it is crucial for clinicians to understand how anti-seizure medications (ASMs) affect cognition and mood, and to choose the proper ASM.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a literature review of the impact on cognition and mood status of lacosamide (LCM) in people with epilepsy.

METHODS

Wesearched PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and reference lists of articles for all types of articles with no limitations on publication date.

RESULTS

A total of 251 records were obtained, including 247 articles in PubMed and 4 articles from reference lists. We included 2 meta-analyses, one randomized controlled trials and 14 observational studies after the screening process. Most studies agree LCM has low risk of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) on cognition. Comparisons with other ASMs, LCM may be preferable to carbamazepine, topiramate and perampanel, and not inferior to lamotrigine. In spite of low incident rate, depression is the most common psychiatric change of LCM. There are no consistent positive or negative psychiatric effects of LCM.

CONCLUSION

Lacosamide has limited impact on cognitive and mood status in this review. Several factors including mechanism of co-administration of ASMs and personal history of psychiatric disorder should be considered as important in the development of cognitive and psychiatric side effects. However, the heterogeneity between studies make the quality of evidence weaker and further trials are needed.

A prospective, multicenter, noninterventional study in Taiwan to evaluate the safety and tolerability of lacosamide as adjunctive therapy for epilepsy in clinical practice

RATIONALE

Lacosamide (LCM) was initially approved in Taiwan in March 2014 for use as adjunctive therapy for focal impaired awareness seizures and secondarily generalized seizures (SGS) in patients with epilepsy ≥16 years of age. The efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive LCM for the treatment of patients with focal seizures have been demonstrated in randomized, placebo-controlled trials. However, the trials do not reflect a flexible dose setting. This study (EP0063) was conducted to assess the safety and tolerability of LCM in real-world clinical practice in Taiwan. Effectiveness of LCM was also assessed as an exploratory objective.

METHODS

EP0063 was a multicenter, prospective, noninterventional study with an expected observation period of 12 months ± 60 days. Eligible patients were ≥16 years of age, had focal impaired awareness seizures and/or SGS (in line with approved indication in Taiwan at the time of the study), were taking at least one concomitant antiseizure medication (ASM), and had at least one seizure in the 3 months before baseline. Patients were prescribed LCM by their treating physician in the course of routine clinical practice. The primary safety variable was treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) spontaneously reported to, or observed by, the treating physician. Based on safety data from previous studies of LCM and known side effects of other ASMs, certain TEAEs (including but not limited to cardiac and electrocardiogram, suicidality, and rash related terms) were analyzed separately. Effectiveness variables included Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) and change in 28-day seizure frequency from baseline to 12 months (or final visit), and freedom from focal seizures.

RESULTS

A total of 171 patients were treated with LCM, of whom 139 (81.3%) completed the study. The Kaplan-Meier estimated 12-month retention was 82.9%. Patients had a mean (standard deviation [SD], range) age of 38.5 (14.0, 16-77) years, and 96 (56.1%) were male. Patients were taking a mean (SD, range) of 2.8 (1.1, 1-6) ASMs at baseline. Mean (SD, range) duration of LCM treatment was 288.7 (111.9, 2-414) days, and the mean (SD, range) daily dosage of LCM was 205.0 (82.7, 50.0-505.2) mg/day. Overall, 95 (55.6%) patients reported at least one TEAE, most commonly dizziness (33 [19.3%] patients). Drug-related TEAEs were reported in 74 (43.3%) patients, and drug-related TEAEs leading to discontinuation of LCM were reported in 14 (8.2%) patients. Two (1.2%) patients died during LCM treatment, which were considered not related to LCM. Two (1.2%) patients had suicidality-related TEAEs; these TEAEs were considered either not related to LCM or the relationship was not recorded. Rash-related TEAEs were reported in five (2.9%) patients (considered LCM-related in two patients). Based on the CGIC, at 12 months (or final visit), 109 (63.7%) patients were considered to have improved, 54 (31.6%) had no change, and the remaining eight (4.7%) were minimally worse. At 12 months (or final visit), the median percentage change in focal seizure frequency was -50.0. During the first 6 months of the study, 21 (12.3%) patients were free from focal seizures; 37 (21.6%) patients were free from focal seizures in the last 6 months of the study; and 14 (8.2%) were free from focal seizures for the full 12 months of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this prospective, noninterventional study suggest that adjunctive LCM was generally safe and well tolerated in this patient group in real-world practice in Taiwan. Effectiveness was also favorable, with more than 60% of patients considered to be improved by their physician at 12 months (or final visit).

The adverse-effect profile of lacosamide

Introduction: Lacosamide has been used in epilepsy patients in the United States, Europe and Asia since it was approved by the FDA in 2008. Many patients have benefited from this drug as a new generation of sodium channel blocker. With the worldwide use of this drug, its adverse effects have gradually emerged, especially some rare adverse events.Areas covered: The present review aims to summarize the adverse effects of lacosamide reported in the literature in recent years to promote the safe clinical application of the drug.Expert opinion: In more than 10 years of experience in drug usage, adverse reactions of lacosamide have also been gradually discovered. The review showed that lacosamide is safe and effective in antiepileptic treatment, and its common side effects are dizziness, headache, drowsiness, diplopia, and cardiovascular abnormalities. Skin rashes, hematotoxicity and heart damage, psychological symptoms and suicide risk have also been reported and emphasized.

Tolerability and efficacy of lacosamide and controlled-release carbamazepine monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy and concomitant psychiatric conditions: Post hoc analysis of a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial

Psychiatric comorbidities are common in patients with epilepsy. A double-blind noninferiority monotherapy trial (SP0993; NCT01243177) enrolled newly diagnosed patients (≥16 years) with focal or generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Patients were randomized 1:1 to lacosamide or carbamazepine controlled-release (carbamazepine-CR). Here, we report data from an exploratory post hoc analysis of patients who reported ongoing psychiatric conditions (Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities System Organ Class). Of 886 treated patients in the trial, 126 (14.2%; 64 on lacosamide; 62 on carbamazepine-CR) reported at least one ongoing psychiatric condition at screening, most commonly depression (38.1%), insomnia (27.8%), and anxiety (26.2%). In this subgroup, 32/64 (50.0%) patients on lacosamide and 22/62 (35.5%) on carbamazepine-CR completed the trial. The most common reasons for discontinuation in patients on lacosamide and carbamazepine-CR were adverse events (10.9%, 24.2%) and lack of efficacy (18.8%, 11.3%). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 52 (81.3%) of patients on lacosamide and 56 (90.3%) of patients on carbamazepine-CR, most commonly (≥10% patients in either treatment group; lacosamide, carbamazepine-CR) dizziness (12.5%, 16.1%), headache (12.5%, 14.5%), nasopharyngitis (12.5%, 9.7%), fatigue (7.8%, 14.5%), nausea (7.8%, 11.3%), somnolence (1.6%, 12.9%), and gamma-glutamyltransferase increase (1.6%, 12.9%). Overall, 15 (23.4%) lacosamide-treated and 10 (16.1%) carbamazepine-CR treated patients reported psychiatric TEAEs, most commonly (≥3 patients in either treatment group; lacosamide, carbamazepine-CR) depression (4.7%, 0) and anxiety (3.1%, 6.5%). There were no reports of psychotic disorder, epileptic psychosis, acute psychosis, or serious psychiatric TEAEs. Stratified Kaplan-Meier estimates for 6- and 12-month seizure freedom at the last evaluated dose were similar with lacosamide and carbamazepine-CR (6 months 81.0%, 75.6%; 12 months 62.5%, 66.6%). A higher proportion of patients on lacosamide than carbamazepine-CR completed 6 (67.2%, 45.2%) and 12 months (50.0%, 37.1%) of treatment at the last evaluated dose without a seizure. This exploratory post hoc analysis indicated that lacosamide monotherapy was efficacious and generally well tolerated in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy and concomitant psychiatric conditions. In this subpopulation, lacosamide showed similar efficacy and numerically better effectiveness than carbamazepine-CR.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs before and after lacosamide initiation as adjunctive therapy among patients with epilepsy in the United States

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate all-cause and epilepsy-specific healthcare resource utilization and costs following lacosamide (LCM) initiation as adjunctive therapy for the treatment of epilepsy.

METHODS

A noninterventional retrospective database analysis was conducted that examined patients diagnosed as having epilepsy who added LCM to existing antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy between 2009 and 2016 (the first LCM prescription was the index event). This study used a single-case design whereby patients served as their own controls. Patients were further required to have a minimum of 12 months of continuous eligibility before (preindex period) and after (postindex period) their index event. In the 12-month postindex period, the only allowed AED regimen change was the addition of LCM. Demographic and clinical characteristics were measured at index and during the preindex period, respectively. All-cause and epilepsy-specific healthcare resource utilization and costs were measured and compared in the pre- and postindex periods. Paired t- and McNemar's tests were conducted to assess the significant differences between pre- and postindex. Univariate analyses were used to analyze the impact of LCM on specific subpopulations.

RESULTS

The study sample comprised of 2171 patients: mean (standard deviation [SD]) age: 38.9 (19.3) years; 52.6% female. Just over half (56%) of these patients were on monotherapy before adding LCM. Prior to adding LCM, 28.8% of patients had an epilepsy-specific inpatient (IP) admission, and 35.7% of patients had an all-cause IP admission, compared with 18.2% and 26.1% of patients in the post-LCM period, respectively (both p < 0.0001). Likewise, 35.6% of patients had an epilepsy-specific emergency room (ER) visit, and 50.0% had an all-cause ER visit prior to adding LCM, compared with 23.8% and 42.1% in post-LCM, respectively (both p < 0.0001). After adding LCM, one-year mean [SD] epilepsy-specific IP admission costs decreased by 42.9% ($13,647 [$52,290] to $7788 [$32,321]), and all-cause IP admission costs decreased by 38.6% ($20,654 [$72,716] to $12,688 [$46,120]) (both p < 0.0001). One-year epilepsy-specific mean [SD] ER costs decreased by 35.2% ($691 [$1756] to $448 [$1909]; p < 0.0001), and all-cause ER cost decreased by 17.8% ($1217 [$3014] to $1000 [$2970]; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Epilepsy-related IP hospitalizations and ER visits (indicators of seizures) were significantly reduced in patients with epilepsy 12 months after adding LCM as an adjunctive therapy to existing AED treatment in a real-world setting, leading to reduced healthcare resource utilization and epilepsy costs.

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.

Complete Atrioventricular Block in an Elderly Patient Treated with Low-Dose Lacosamide

Lacosamide, one of the last antiepileptic drugs marketed, can cause extension of PR interval. Precautions are recommended when used in elderly and with other drugs extending PR interval. Cases of severe third-degree atrioventricular block have been reported only in post-marketing case reports when used at high-doses and remain rare. We report the case of an 88-year-old woman treated with bisoprolol, who experienced a complete atrioventricular block after initiation of lacosamide for epilepsy associated with neurodegenerative disease. This dramatic event required a pacemaker implementation. Not being dose-dependent (initiation dosage used), it seemed partially explained by drug-drug interaction with bisoprolol.

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.

Comparing Safety and Efficacy of "Third-Generation" Antiepileptic Drugs: Long-Term Extension and Post-marketing Treatment

Four "third-generation" antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were approved for adjunctive treatment of refractory focal onset seizures during the past 10 years. Long-term efficacy and safety of the drugs were demonstrated in large extension studies and in reports of subgroups of patients not studied in pivotal trials. Reviewing extension study and post-marketing outcome series for the four newer AEDs-lacosamide, perampanel, eslicarbazepine acetate and brivaracetam-can guide clinicians in treating and monitoring patients. AED extension studies evaluate treatment retention, drug tolerability, and drug safety during individualized treatment with flexible dosing and thus provide information not available in rigid pivotal trials. Patient retention in the studies ranged from 75 to 80% at 1 year and from 36 to 68% at 2-year treatment intervals. Safety findings were generally similar to those of pivotal trials, with no major safety risks identified and with several specific adverse drug effects, such as hyponatremia, reported. The third-generation AEDs, some through new mechanisms and others with improved tolerability compared to related AEDs, provide new options in efficacy and tolerability.

The retention of lacosamide in patients with epilepsy and intellectual disability in three specialised institutions

PURPOSE

We describe the effectiveness of lacosamide as adjunctive therapy in patients with epilepsy and an intellectual disability. This information is relevant, as few data exist pertaining to this population with a high prevalence of (intractable) epilepsy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study in three specialised institutions. Inclusion criteria were (1) focal onset or symptomatic generalized (2) therapy-resistant epilepsy, (3) intellectual disability and (4) residence in a care-facility for people with intellectual disabilities (PWID). The primary outcome variables were the retention rates of lacosamide, estimated through Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Secondary outcomes were reported seizure control, side effects and clinical factors influencing discontinuation.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-two patients were included. The median retention time of lacosamide in our cohort was four years. The estimated one-, two- and three-year retention rates of lacosamide were 64%, 57% and 56% respectively. Severity of intellectual disability and seizure type did not influence whether lacosamide was continued. In 48.5% of patients, a reduction of seizure activity was reported. Side effects were at least part of the reason for discontinuing treatment in 26.5% of all patients. Common side effects were tiredness/somnolence (in 30.3%), aggression/agitation (24.2%), and instable gait (15.2%). Five deaths during follow-up were considered unlikely to be related to the use of lacosamide. One patient died unexpectedly within two months of treatment onset, probably this was a case of SUDEP.

CONCLUSION

These retention rates of lacosamide in PWID are similar to rates of previously registered anti-epileptic drugs in PWID. Behavioural side effects were noted in a high proportion compared to the general literature on lacosamide. Other side effects were in line with this literature. Lacosamide seems effective and safe for PWID and refractory epilepsy.

Lacosamide in status epilepticus: Systematic review of current evidence

OBJECTIVE

The intravenous formulation of lacosamide (LCM) and its good overall tolerability and safety favor the use in status epilepticus (SE). The aim of this systematic review was to identify and evaluate studies reporting on the use of LCM in SE.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of electronic databases using a combined search strategy from 2008 until October 2016. Using a standardized assessment form, information on the study design, methodologic framework, data sources, efficacy, and adverse events attributed to LCM were extracted from each publication and systematically reported.

RESULTS

In total, 522 SE episodes (51.7% female) in 486 adults and 36 children and adolescents were evaluated with an overall LCM efficacy of 57%. Efficacy was comparable between use in nonconvulsive (57%; 82/145) and generalized-convulsive (61%; 30/49; p = 0.68) SE, whereas overall success rate was better in focal motor SE (92%; 34/39, p = 0.013; p < 0.001). The efficacy with later positioning of LCM decreased from 100% to 20%. The main adverse events during treatment of SE are dizziness, abnormal vision, diplopia, and ataxia. Overall, lacosamide is well tolerated and has no clinically relevant drug-drug interactions.

SIGNIFICANCE

The available data regarding the use of LCM in SE are promising, with a success rate of 57%. The strength of LCM is the lack of interaction potential and the option for intravenous use in emergency situations requiring rapid uptitration.

The efficacy of lacosamide as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy in focal epilepsy and its use in status epilepticus: clinical trial evidence and experience

Lacosamide (LCM) is approved for anticonvulsive treatment in focal epilepsy and exhibits its function through the slow inactivation of voltage-gated sodium channels (VGSCs). LCM shows comparable efficacy with other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) licensed in the last decade: in three randomized placebo-controlled trials, significant median seizure reduction rates of 35.2% for 200 mg/day, 36.4-39% for 400 mg/day and 37.8-40% for 600 mg/day were reported. Likewise, 50% responder rates were 38.3-41.1% for 400 mg/day and 38.1-41.2% for 600 mg/day. Similar rates were reported in post-marketing studies. The main adverse events (AEs) are dizziness, abnormal vision, diplopia and ataxia. Overall, LCM is well tolerated and has no clinically-relevant drug-drug interactions. Due to the drug's intravenous availability, its use in status epilepticus (SE) is increasing, and the available data are promising.

[Algorithms of mono- and polytherapy in clinical epileptology]

The large number of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) at the physician's disposal provides not only a broad therapeutic potential in the treatment of epilepsy (EP), but creates difficulties in the adequate choice of AED. The sufficient experience in the management of patients with epilepsy has been gained so far in the world, based on which the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE), updated classification, adopted the basic definition of efficiency, remission, resistance, evidence of research on the effectiveness of AED therapy, and introduced the concept of "resolved" epilepsy. In this article, a group of Russian experts suggest recommendations on the main steps in the choice of therapy in epilepsy. Possible drug interactions between different AEDs and other drugs as well as main characteristics of mono- and polytherapy of epilepsy are described. Some features of the use of AEDs in the elderly, characteristics of the "female" epilepsy related to the reproductive function and basic requirements for the therapy of epilepsy in children are presented.