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

Real-world analysis of retention on cenobamate in patients with epilepsy in the United States

BACKGROUND

This retrospective, observational study used US claims data to assess retention rates on cenobamate compared with four branded antiseizure medications (ASMs) in patients with epilepsy.

METHODS

Adults (≥18 years) with prevalent epilepsy (ICD-10 code G40.xx) and ≥ 1 prescription for cenobamate or any of the newer branded ASMs (brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, or perampanel) between May 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021 were identified from the HealthVerity Marketplace database. At least 360 days of continuous enrollment was required before and after the index date (Day 1 of initiating cenobamate or branded ASM). Patients were followed until cessation of cenobamate or branded ASM or the end of data collection using Kaplan-Meier methods. Retention was compared between cenobamate and the branded ASMs (both as a group and individually) using Chi-square tests.

RESULTS

In total, 4109 patients were included (195 cenobamate; 3914 branded ASMs). A higher proportion of patients in the cenobamate group compared with the branded ASMs group had concurrent focal and generalized epilepsy (65.6% vs 40.0%) and were on ≥ 3 concomitant ASMs (48.2% vs 12.8%) at the index date. Median time to discontinuation (i.e., the time that half the patients discontinued) was not quite reached after 12 months in the cenobamate group (50.3% of patients remained on cenobamate) and was 7.7 months in the branded ASMs group. Retention was significantly higher with cenobamate vs the branded ASMs group (p = 0.04545) and vs the individual ASMs lacosamide (p = 0.03044) and perampanel (p = 0.01558). Twelve-month retention rates (95% confidence intervals) were 50.3% (43.1%-57.0%) for cenobamate, 40.5% (38.9%-42.0%) for branded ASMs overall, 42.3% (38.6%-46.0%) for brivaracetam, 44.1% (39.2%-49.0%) for eslicarbazepine, 39.9% (38.0%-41.8%) for lacosamide, and 36.8% (31.9%-41.8%) for perampanel.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world analysis, retention was significantly higher with cenobamate vs a pooled group of four branded ASMs despite a greater frequency of patients in the cenobamate group having characteristics of more difficult-to-treat epilepsy.

First add-on lacosamide treatment in children with focal epilepsy in China: A multi-centre real-life cohort study

AIM

To assess the effectiveness and safety of lacosamide (LCM) as the first add-on therapy for children with focal epilepsy at multiple centres in China.

METHOD

Children aged 4-16 years with focal epilepsy from 13 epilepsy centres were included in this study. All patients were treated with LCM as the first add-on treatment and followed up for 26 weeks. The seizure frequency, seizure-free rate, ≥50% response rate, retention rate, and incidence of adverse drug reactions after the addition of LCM were analysed.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine children (58 males; aged 4-16 years; mean age 8.51 ± 2.95 years) were enroled. The mean age at first seizure was 5.74 ± 3.12 years. All patients were administered LCM as the first add-on treatment for focal epilepsy. Twenty-eight patients (28/99, 28.28%) did not experience seizures during the follow-up period. The ≥50% response rates were 80.81% (80/99), 93.88% (92/98), 98.98% (97/98), and 100.0% (98/98) at 6 weeks (visit two), 10 weeks (visit three), 18 weeks (visit four), and 26 weeks (visit five), respectively, compared to that at baseline (visit one). The intelligence scores decreased in 12 participants, remained unchanged in 64, and increased in 16. Adverse events occurred in three participants during the trial, all of which were mild.

INTERPRETATION

LCM was effective as the first add-on therapy in this real-life multi-centre study of a paediatric population with focal epilepsy. Further prospective studies with long-term follow-up periods are needed to confirm the effectiveness and tolerability of LCM.

Plasma lacosamide monitoring in children with epilepsy: Focus on reference therapeutic range and influencing factors

BACKGROUND

Lacosamide (LCM) is a newer anti-seizure medication (ASM) that was approved in China in 2018, but its real-world clinical data and plasma concentrations in Chinese children with epilepsy are very limited. Of note, the reference range for routine LCM therapeutic drug monitoring is still unknown. The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of LCM as a monotherapy or an adjunctive treatment with other ASMs and to evaluate the potential factors affecting its efficacy and variable LCM plasma concentrations in Chinese children with epilepsy.

METHODS

Children with epilepsy (<18 years) with routine plasma LCM monitoring from March 2019 to December 2021 at the Department of Pharmacy, Children's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University were retrospectively collected. Clinical data were obtained from the hospital information system.

RESULTS

76 pediatric patients (52 males) were finally enrolled. Mean age was 7.9 years (1.3-17.3 years) with a mean dose of LCM 6.3 mg/kg/day (2.0-11.3 mg/kg/day). The TDM data as a whole showed that the median plasma trough concentration (C ₀) was 3.42 μg/mL (1.25-8.31 μg/mL). A 6-month LCM add-on therapy produced 70% of patients achieving ≥50% seizure frequency reductions, and the number was 81% for the one-year follow-up findings. Interestingly, more patients who took LCM monotherapy achieved seizure freedom over the same periods of follow-up observations. Under maintenance dosages, approximately 92.1% of the C ₀ values were 2.0-7.0 μg/mL. The plasma-C ₀-to-daily dose (C ₀/Dose) ratio was significantly associated with age and body weight (BW). The C ₀/Dose ratio in patients aged 1- ≤ 6 and 6- ≤ 12 years was significantly higher by 81% and 29% than those aged 12- ≤ 18 years, respectively. The C ₀/Dose ratio in patients with a BW of ≥40 kg was 1.7-fold lower than in patients with a BW of ≤ 20 kg. In addition, complex LCM-ASMs interactions were observed. Oxcarbazepine significantly decreased the C ₀/Dose ratio of LCM by 28%.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective study confirmed the effectiveness and tolerability of the LCM treatment used alone or with other ASMs in children with focal epilepsy. Children with higher BW and older age have lower C ₀/Dose ratio. Complex drug interactions between LCM and other concomitant ASMs were revealed. Notably, based on the data in our hands, the reference range, i.e., 2.0-7.0 μg/mL, for routine LCM monitoring may be feasible. The real-world evidence of this study supports LCM as a promising option in children with focal epilepsy.