Anti-seizure medications and efficacy against focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures: A systematic review with relevance for SUDEP prevention

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate in patients with focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures

OBJECTIVE

To report the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) treatment in reducing focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS).

METHODS

Data were pooled from 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of adjunctive ESL in patients with focal seizures. Patients treated with 800 or 1200 mg/day ESL and who experienced ≥ 1 FBTCS during baseline were included. Efficacy was measured using FBTCS standardized seizure frequency (SSF), responder rates (≥50%, ≥75%, and 100%), and time to first FBTCS. Adverse events (AEs) were tabulated for each subgroup.

RESULTS

Of the original 1447 patients, 438 patients in the safety population were included with ≥ 1 FBTCS at baseline (efficacy population, n = 429). Patients with ≥ 2 FBTCS (safety, n = 354; efficacy, n = 346) and ≥ 3 FBTCS (safety, n = 294; efficacy, n = 288) at baseline were also analyzed. The 1200 mg/day ESL group experienced lower least squares mean SSF vs placebo in patients with ≥ 1 baseline FBTCS (P = 0.0395) and ≥ 3 baseline FBTCS (P = 0.0091). The 50% responder rates improved for 1200 mg/day ESL vs placebo (≥1 FBTCS, P = 0.005; ≥2 FBTCS, P = 0.0063; ≥3 FBTCS, P = 0.0016). The 75% responder rates improved with 1200 mg/day ESL vs placebo (≥1 FBTCS, P = 0.0315; ≥2 FBTCS, P = 0.0215; ≥3 FBTCS, P = 0.0099), and with 800 mg/day ESL for ≥ 2 FBTCS at baseline (P = 0.0486). The 100% responder rate was higher in patients treated with 1200 mg/day ESL (not significant). Time to first FBTCS was longer with both 800 (P = 0.0008) and 1200 mg/day (P = 0.0020) ESL vs placebo for the ≥ 1 FBTCS subgroup, and with 1200 mg/day ESL for ≥ 2 FBTCS (P = 0.0060) and ≥ 3 FBTCS (P = 0.0152) subgroups. Overall, AEs occurred at similar rates across subgroups, and were lower than the original RCTs.

CONCLUSION

Adjunctive ESL produced a robust response in patients with FBTCS, a seizure type associated with SUDEP and high injury rates. Adjunctive ESL was well tolerated in patients who experienced FBTCS.

Lamotrigine add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review last updated in 2020. Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder, affecting 0.5% to 1% of the population. In nearly 30% of cases, epilepsy is resistant to currently available drugs. Pharmacological treatment remains the first choice to control epilepsy. Lamotrigine is a second-generation antiseizure medication. When used as an add-on (in combination with other antiseizure medications), lamotrigine can reduce seizures, but with some adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of add-on lamotrigine, compared with add-on placebo or no add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid) on 3 October 2022 with no language restrictions. CRS Web includes randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated add-on lamotrigine versus add-on placebo or no add-on treatment in people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. We used data from the first period of eligible cross-over trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, two review authors independently selected trials and extracted data. Our primary outcome was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. Our secondary outcomes were treatment withdrawal, adverse effects, cognitive effects, and quality of life. Primary analyses were by intention-to-treat. We performed sensitivity best- and worse-case analyses to account for missing outcome data. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% Cls) for dichotomous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no new studies for this update, so the results and conclusions of the review are unchanged. We included five parallel-group studies in adults or children, eight cross-over studies in adults or children, and one parallel study with a responder-enriched design in infants. In total, these 14 studies enroled 1806 eligible participants (38 infants, 199 children, 1569 adults). Baseline phases ranged from four to 12 weeks and treatment phases ranged from eight to 36 weeks. We rated 11 studies (1243 participants) at low overall risk of bias and three (697 participants) at unclear overall risk of bias due to lack of information on study design. Four studies (563 participants) reported effective blinding. Lamotrigine compared with placebo probably increases the likelihood of achieving 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.23; 12 trials, 1322 participants (adults and children); moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in risk of treatment withdrawal for any reason among people treated with lamotrigine versus people treated with placebo (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37; 14 trials; 1806 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Lamotrigine compared with placebo is probably associated with a greater risk of ataxia (RR 3.34, 99% Cl 2.01 to 5.55; 12 trials; 1525 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), dizziness (RR 1.76, 99% Cl 1.28 to 2.43; 13 trials; 1768 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), nausea (RR 1.81, 99% CI 1.22 to 2.68; 12 studies, 1486 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and diplopia (RR 3.79, 99% Cl 2.15 to 6.68; 3 trials, 944 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in the risk of fatigue between lamotrigine and placebo (RR 0.82, 99% CI 0.55 to 1.22; 12 studies, 1552 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Lamotrigine as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal seizures is probably effective for reducing seizure frequency. Certain adverse effects (ataxia, dizziness, diplopia, and nausea) are probably more likely to occur with lamotrigine compared with placebo. There is probably little or no difference in the number of people who withdraw from treatment with lamotrigine versus placebo. The trials were of relatively short duration and provided no long-term evidence. In addition, some trials had few participants. Further trials are needed to assess the long-term effects of lamotrigine and to compare lamotrigine with other add-on drugs.

Cenobamate in patients with highly refractory focal epilepsy: A retrospective real-world study

PURPOSE

To determine the effectiveness and safety outcomes of cenobamate in a cohort of patients with highly refractory focal epilepsy in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

Observational, retrospective, phase 4 study on subjects receiving cenobamate in three Spanish centers. The primary endpoint was the retention rate at the last follow-up. The main secondary endpoints were the 50%-responder  and seizure-free rates at three months and the last follow-up. Other secondary endpoints were Global Clinical Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) scores and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients with highly refractory focal epilepsy with 24.7 years of disease evolution, ten previously tried ASM, and a 23.5% of previous epilepsy surgery were included. The retention rate at the last follow-up was 80.4%. The 50% responder rate in focal seizures at three months was 56.5% (median reduction per month 51%, 0-74.6; p < 0.0001) and in focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures was 63.6% (median reduction per month 89%, 0-100; p = 0.022). A total of 54.3% of subjects reported a reduction in the intensity of focal seizures, and 66% manifested clinically significant satisfaction. Cenobamate allowed a significant decrease in concomitant ASM, especially sodium channel blockers. TEAEs were reported in 43.1% of individuals, 85% of whom resolved or improved, with no new safety findings.

CONCLUSION

In this analysis of patients with highly refractory focal epilepsy treated with cenobamate according to standard clinical practice, there was evidence of a high reduction in both seizure frequency and intensity, with a manageable safety profile.

Cenobamate (YKP3089) and Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Review of the Literature

Cenobamate (CNB), ([(R)-1-(2-chlorophenyl)-2-(2H-tetrazol-2-yl)ethyl], is a novel tetrazole alkyl carbamate derivative. In November 2019, the Food and Drug Administration approved Xcopri®, marketed by SK Life Science Inc., (Paramus, NJ, USA) for adult focal seizures. The European Medicines Agency approved Ontozry® by Arvelle Therapeutics Netherlands B.V.(Amsterdam, The Neatherlands) in March 2021. Cenobamate is a medication that could potentially change the perspectives regarding the management and prognosis of refractory epilepsy. In this way, this study aims to review the literature on CNB's pharmacological properties, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety. CNB is a highly effective drug in managing focal onset seizures, with more than twenty percent of individuals with drug-resistant epilepsy achieving seizure freedom. This finding is remarkable in the antiseizure medication literature. The mechanism of action of CNB is still poorly understood, but it is associated with transient and persistent sodium currents and GABAergic neurotransmission. In animal studies, CNB showed sustained efficacy and potency in the 6 Hz test regardless of the stimulus intensity. CNB was revealed to be the most cost-effective drug among different third-generation antiseizure medications. Also, CNB could have neuroprotective effects. However, there are still concerns regarding its potential for abuse and suicidality risk, which future studies should clearly assess, after which protocols should be changed. The major drawback of CNB therapy is the slow and complex titration and maintenance phases preventing the wide use of this new agent in clinical practice.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is a major contributor to premature mortality in people with epilepsy. This review provides an update on recent findings on the epidemiology of SUDEP, clinical risk factors and potential mechanisms.

RECENT FINDINGS

The overall risk rate of SUDEP is approximately 1 per 1000 patients per year in the general epilepsy population and that children and older adults have a similar incidence. Generalized convulsive seizures (GCS), perhaps through their effects on brainstem cardiopulmonary networks, can cause significant postictal respiratory and autonomic dysfunction though other mechanisms likely exist as well. Work in animal models of SUDEP has identified multiple neurotransmitter systems, which may be future targets for pharmacological intervention. There are also chronic functional and structural changes in autonomic function in patients who subsequently die from SUDEP suggesting that some SUDEP risk is dynamic. Modifiable risks for SUDEP include GCS seizure frequency, medication adherence and nighttime supervision.

SUMMARY

Current knowledge of SUDEP risk factors has identified multiple targets for SUDEP prevention today as we await more specific therapeutic targets that are emerging from translational research studies.

Exploring factors associated with interictal heart rate variability in patients with medically controlled focal epilepsy

PURPOSE

Heart rate variability (HRV) reflects the balance between the functional outputs of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. It is lower in patients with epilepsy than in the healthy controls. However, HRV has been inadequately studied in different patient subgroups with medically controlled epilepsy. Hence, this study aimed to investigate factors associated with interictal HRV in patients with medically controlled epilepsy.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 54 patients (24 males and 30 females) with medically controlled focal epilepsy who only received monotherapy to eliminate the confounding effect of different antiseizure medications (ASMs). Patients with major systemic or psychiatric disorder comorbidities were excluded. For HRV analysis, electroencephalography and 5-minute well-qualified electrocardiogram segment recording were conducted during stage N1 or N2 sleep. In addition, the association between age, gender, seizure onset type, ASMs, and the time domain and frequency-domain HRV measures was analyzed.

RESULTS

HRV negatively correlated with advanced age. Patients with focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizure (FBTCS) had a significantly lower HRV than focal impaired awareness seizures (FIAS). HRV was not associated with any gender and ASMs.

CONCLUSIONS

HRV negatively correlated with age, and patients with FBTCS had a decreased HRV. Thus, these patients may have a declining autonomic function. Therefore, different seizure types may carry different risks of autonomic dysfunction in patients with medically controlled focal epilepsy.