Examining the clinical utility of lacosamide: pooled analyses of three phase II/III clinical trials

Efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive lacosamide in patients aged <4 years with focal seizures

OBJECTIVE

Primary objective was to evaluate efficacy of lacosamide administered concomitantly with 1-3 antiseizure medications in young children with uncontrolled focal (partial-onset) seizures.

METHODS

Double-blind, parallel-group trial (SP0967: NCT02477839/2013-000717-20) conducted between June 2015 and May 2020 at hospitals and clinics in 25 countries. Patients (aged ≥1 month to <4 years) with uncontrolled focal seizures were randomized 1:1 to adjunctive lacosamide or placebo using an interactive voice/web response system and stratified by age. After a 20-day titration period, patients who reached target-dose range (8-12 mg/kg/day) entered a 7-day maintenance period. Region-specific primary efficacy variables were based on ≤72-h video-electroencephalograms: change in average daily frequency (ADF) of electrographic focal seizures as measured on end-of-maintenance video-electroencephalogram versus end-of-baseline video-electroencephalogram (United States); 50% responder rate (≥50% reduction in ADF of focal seizures) during maintenance (European Union).

RESULTS

In total, 255 patients were randomized (lacosamide/placebo: 128/127) and received ≥1 trial medication dose. Percentage reduction in ADF of focal seizures for lacosamide (116 patients) versus placebo (120 patients) was 3.2% (95% confidence interval = -13.6 to 17.5, p = 0.69). 50% responder rate was 41.4% for lacosamide (116 patients), 37.5% for placebo (120 patients) (p = 0.58). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 44.5% of lacosamide-treated patients (placebo 51.2%).

INTERPRETATION

Adjunctive lacosamide did not show superior efficacy versus placebo in young children with focal seizures. However, efficacy variables were potentially affected by high variability and low reliability between readers in video-electroencephalogram interpretation. Lacosamide was generally well tolerated; safety profile was acceptable and consistent with that in adults and children aged ≥4 years.

Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling of Lacosamide in Patients With Hepatic and Renal Impairment and Pediatric Populations to Support Pediatric Dosing Optimization

PURPOSE

Lacosamide (LCM) is a new-generation anti-seizure medication that is efficacious in patients with focal seizures with or without secondary generalization. Until now, the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of LCM are still lacking in Chinese epilepsy patients, particularly for pediatric populations and patients with renal or hepatic impairment.

METHODS

This study was conducted to develop a physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model to characterize the pharmacokinetics of LCM in Chinese populations and predict the pharmacokinetics of LCM in Chinese pediatric populations and patients with renal or hepatic impairment. Using data from clinical investigations, the developed PBPK model was validated by comparing predicted and observed blood concentration data.

FINDINGS

Doses should be reduced to approximately 82%, 75%, 63%, and 76% of the Chinese healthy adult dose in patients with mild, moderate, and severe renal impairment and end-stage renal disease; and approximately 89%, 72%, and 36% of the Chinese healthy adult dose in patients with Child Pugh-A, B, and C hepatic impairment. For pediatric populations, intravenous doses should be adjusted to 1.75 mg/kg for newborns, 2.5 mg/kg for toddlers, 2.2 mg/kg mg for preschool and school age, and 2 mg/kg mg for adolescents to achieve an equivalent plasma exposure of 2 mg/kg LCM in adults. The oral doses should be adjusted to 20 mg for toddlers, 32 mg for preschool, 45 mg for school age, and 95 mg for adolescents to achieve an approximately equivalent plasma exposure of 100 mg LCM in adults.

IMPLICATIONS

The PBPK model of LCM can be utilized to optimize dosage regimens for special populations.

Optimizing treatment persistence in epilepsy: a comparative analysis of combined antiseizure medications with different mechanisms of action

Background

Combination therapy with antiseizure medications (ASMs) is a rational strategy if monotherapy cannot effectively control seizures, thereby aiming to improve tolerance and treatment persistence.

Objectives

To compare the efficacy of different ASM combinations among patients.

Design

Patients with epilepsy on monotherapy who had a second ASM added as concomitant two-drug therapy from January 2009 to May 2019 in the Chang Gung Research Database, Taiwan, were included in the analysis.

Methods

ASM combinations were compared based on their primary mechanism of action (MoA) which are as follows: gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor (G), sodium channel blocker (SC), synaptic vesicle protein 2A (SV2), calcium channel blocker (C), and multiple mechanisms (M). Treatment persistence was compared, and the predictors of persistence were analyzed.

Results

In total, 3033 patients were enrolled in this study. Combined ASMs with different MoAs had significantly longer treatment persistence than ASMs with similar MoAs, specifically SC and M combinations. Patients receiving combined ASMs with different MoAs were less likely to discontinue treatment [adjusted hazards ratio: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.75-0.93), p < 0.001]. Among all combinations, the SC + SV2 combination had the longest treatment persistence (mean ± SD: 912.7 ± 841.6 days). Meanwhile, patients receiving the G combination had a higher risk of treatment discontinuation than those receiving the SC + SV2 combination. Underlying malignancies were associated with an increased risk of treatment discontinuation across all MoA categories. Male patients receiving the SC, SV2, and M combinations were more likely to discontinue treatment than female patients. Moreover, patients with renal disease were more likely to discontinue treatment with the SV2 combinations.

Conclusion

ASM combinations with different MoAs had superior efficacy and tolerability to ASM combinations with similar MoAs, particularly SC and M combinations. In our cohort, factors associated with treatment discontinuation included underlying malignancy, male sex, and renal disease. These findings may provide valuable insights into the use of ASM combinations if monotherapy cannot adequately control seizures.

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.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of lacosamide among children: is it helpful?

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of Lacosamide (LCM) in a pediatric population with epilepsy using LCM serum concentration and its correlation to the age of the participants and the dosage of the drug. Methods: Demographic and clinical data were collected from the medical records of children with epilepsy treated with LCM at Shamir Medical Center between February 2019 to September 2021, in whom medication blood levels were measured. Trough serum LCM concentration was measured in the biochemical laboratory using High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) and correlated with the administered weight-based medication dosing and clinical report. Results: Forty-two children aged 10.43 ± 5.13 years (range: 1-18) were included in the study. The average daily dose of LCM was 306.62 ± 133.20 mg (range: 100-600). The average number of seizures per day was 3.53 ± 7.25 compared to 0.87 ± 1.40 before and after LCM treatment, respectively. The mean LCM serum concentration was 6.74 ± 3.27 mg/L. No statistically significant association was found between LCM serum levels and the clinical response (p = 0.58), as well as the correlation between LCM dosage and the change in seizure rate (p = 0.30). Our study did not find a correlation between LCM serum concentration and LCM dosage and the gender of the participants: males (n = 17) females (n = 23) (p = 0.31 and p = 0.94, respectively). A positive trend was found between age and LCM serum concentrations (r = 0.26, p = 0.09). Conclusion: Based on the data that has been obtained from our study, it appears that therapeutic drug monitoring for LCM may not be necessary. Nonetheless, further research in this area is needed in the light of the relatively small sample size of the study.

Lacosamide as the first add-on therapy in adult patients with focal epilepsy: A multicenter real-world study

Background

Prospective observations on the effectiveness, safety, tolerance, and influence of comorbidity of add-on lacosamide (LCM) therapy are still lacking, especially for domestic generic LCM in China.

Objective

In this multicenter real-world study, we aimed to evaluate lacosamide (LCM) as the first add-on therapy in adult Chinese patients with focal epilepsy that had initially been treated with monotherapy.

Methods

A cohort of consecutive focal epilepsy patients aged over 16 years were enrolled and followed at the multi-epilepsy centers in China. LCM was prescribed as the first add-on therapy. The main outcome measures included seizure frequency and response rate. Data on seizure-free rate, retention rate, scales of depression and anxiety, and adverse events were also collected as additional outcome measures.

Results

A total number of 107 adult subjects (60 men, 56.07%) were enrolled. The mean age was 37.16 ± 15.01 years, and the mean age at seizure onset was 312.35 ± 199.97 months. After the LCM add-on therapy, the ≥50% response rates were 76.19, 81.73, 94.12, and 95.79% at the visit at 4 weeks (visit 2), 8 weeks (visit 3), 16 weeks (visit 4), and 24 weeks (visit 5), respectively, compared to the baseline (visit 1). A total of 34 patients (31.78%) had no seizures during the whole follow-up period. The posttreatment emotional performance of the 97 subjects, defined as generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory (NDDI) scores, was significantly better than the baseline one. Only one patient suffered from mild dizziness.

Conclusion

LCM as the first add-on therapy in adult focal epilepsy in China was effective and safe. Further prospective studies with long-term follow-up periods are needed to confirm our present findings.

Clinical trial registration

http://www.chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR2100042485.

Efficacy and safety of adjunctive padsevonil in adults with drug-resistant focal epilepsy: Results from two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To characterize efficacy, safety/tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of padsevonil (PSL) administered concomitantly with ≤3 antiseizure medications (ASMs) for observable focal seizures in adults with drug-resistant epilepsy in two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials.

METHODS

The phase 2b dose-finding trial (EP0091/NCT03373383) randomized patients 1:1:1:1:1 to PSL 50/100/200/400 mg or placebo twice daily (b.i.d.). The phase 3 efficacy trial (EP0092/NCT03739840) randomized patients 1:1:1:1 to PSL 100/200/400 mg or placebo b.i.d. Patients with observable (focal aware with motor symptoms, focal impaired awareness, focal to bilateral tonic-clonic) focal seizures for ≥3 years, experiencing them ≥4 times per 28 days including during the 4-week baseline period despite treatment with ≥4 lifetime ASMs including current ASMs, were enrolled.

RESULTS

In EP0091 and EP0092, 410 and 231 patients, respectively, were randomized and received at least one dose of trial medication. In patients in EP0091 on PSL 50/100/200/400 mg b.i.d. (n = 80/82/81/81, respectively) versus placebo (n = 81), outcomes included percentage reductions over placebo in observable focal seizure frequency during the 12-week maintenance period: 17.2%, 19.1% (p = 0.128), 19.2% (p = 0.128), 12.4% (p = 0.248); 75% responder rates (p-values for odds ratios): 13.8%, 12.2% (p = 0.192), 11.1% (p = 0.192), 16.0% (p = 0.124) versus 6.2%; 50% responder rates: 33.8% (p = 0.045), 31.7% (p = 0.079), 25.9% (p = 0.338), 32.1% (p = 0.087), versus 21.0%; TEAEs were reported by 82.7% (67/81), 78.3% (65/83), 74.4% (61/82), 90.1% (73/81) versus 78.3% (65/83). In patients in EP0092 on PSL 100/200/400 mg b.i.d. (n = 60/56/56, respectively) versus placebo (n = 54), outcomes included percentage reductions over placebo: -5.6% (p = 0.687), 6.5% (p = 0.687), 6.3% (p = 0.687); 75% responder rates: 15.3% (p = 0.989), 12.5% (p = 0.989), 14.3% (p = 0.989) versus 13.0%; 50% responder rates: 35.6% (p = 0.425), 33.9% (p = 0.625), and 42.9% (p = 0.125) versus 27.8%; TEAEs were reported by 80.0% (48/60), 78.9% (45/57), 83.1% (49/59) versus 67.3% (37/55).

SIGNIFICANCE

In both trials, the primary outcomes did not reach statistical significance in any PSL dose group compared with placebo. PSL was generally well tolerated, and no new safety signals were identified.

The Pharmacoresistant Epilepsy: An Overview on Existant and New Emerging Therapies

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological chronic disorders, with an estimated prevalence of 0. 5 – 1%. Currently, treatment options for epilepsy are predominantly based on the administration of symptomatic therapy. Most patients are able to achieve seizure freedom by the first two appropriate drug trials. Thus, patients who cannot reach a satisfactory response after that are defined as pharmacoresistant. However, despite the availability of more than 20 antiseizure medications (ASMs), about one-third of epilepsies remain drug-resistant. The heterogeneity of seizures and epilepsies, the coexistence of comorbidities, and the broad spectrum of efficacy, safety, and tolerability related to the ASMs, make the management of these patients actually challenging. In this review, we analyze the most relevant clinical and pathogenetic issues related to drug-resistant epilepsy, and then we discuss the current evidence about the use of available ASMs and the alternative non-pharmacological approaches.

Effect and tolerability of perampanel in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

Perampanel is one of the most recently approved antiseizure medications. The aim of the present study was to assess clinical efficacy and tolerability, in combination with pharmacokinetic variability, of perampanel treatment in patients at a tertiary referral center for epilepsy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational study of patients given perampanel as adjunctive treatment in the period January 2013 - February 2019 at the National Center for Epilepsy at Oslo University Hospital, Norway.

RESULTS

Clinical data were available for 175 mainly adult patients with drug-resistant epilepsy with mean treatment duration of 16.1 months. We found that 23% (40 patients) were responders (i.e., achieving more than 50% reduction in seizure frequency), four of whom became seizure free, 29% (51 patients) experienced a modest effect, whereas for 29% (50 patients) perampanel had no seizure-reducing effect. A paradoxical effect, with seizure aggravation, was reported in 9% (15 patients). The responder rate was significantly higher in those with slow vs. fast dosage titration. Logistic regression analysis showed better efficacy among those with generalized vs. those with focal epilepsy. Adverse effects were reported by 135 patients (77%), ranging from mild (34%), to moderate (41%) and severe (2%). In 55 patients (41%), these adverse effects resulted in discontinuation of treatment with perampanel. The most frequent adverse effects were psychiatric symptoms (34%), dizziness (31%), and sleepiness (26%). Of the 31 patients for whom serum concentration measurements were available, the mean daily perampanel dose was 6.3 mg (SD 3.0), with a mean serum concentration at steady state of 1.03 μmol/L (range: 0.15-3.59 μmol/L). There were pronounced differences between patients, as demonstrated by a 12-fold variability in the range of concentration/dose (C/D)-ratios (0.06 to 0.69 μmol/L/mg), where enzyme inducers contributed.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate that perampanel had a modest seizure-reducing effect in this very treatment-resistant patient group. Predictors of treatment success were generalized epilepsy and slow dosage titration. In patients without a history of psychiatric problems, clinicians could consider increasing dose of perampanel beyond 6 mg daily, taking co-medication and serum concentrations into account.

Is Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Lacosamide Needed in Patients with Seizures and Epilepsy?

Lacosamide is an antiepileptic drug (AED) that has linear pharmacokinetics, predictable blood concentrations, and few drug interactions, setting it apart from other AEDs that require vigorous therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) such as phenytoin and carbamazepine. However, there have been reports of altered lacosamide pharmacokinetics in some populations. The purpose of this review is to determine whether lacosamide pharmacokinetics are altered in certain patient populations, suggesting the need for TDM. A literature search of Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane trials was conducted on January 3, 2019 (and then updated on September 2, 2019) to search for articles relevant to the TDM or pharmacokinetics of lacosamide. A total of 56 relevant articles were found and included in this review. Dose of lacosamide is linearly correlated with plasma concentrations and efficacy. However, currently there is no well-established reference range. Overall, the recommended reference ranges varied from 2.2 to 20 mg/L. Lacosamide has very few clinically relevant drug-drug interactions; however, there seems to be a significant drug interaction between lacosamide and enzyme-inducer AEDs. Based on available literature, it appears that lacosamide pharmacokinetics may be altered in severe renal dysfunction, in patients on dialysis and with extremes of age. More evidence is currently needed on lacosamide pharmacokinetics in pregnancy and critical illness. While it is not practical to utilize TDM for all patients, TDM may be useful in patients taking enzyme-inducer AEDs, in patients with decreased renal function or on dialysis, and older adults.

Seizure freedom as an outcome in epilepsy treatment clinical trials

Seizure freedom is recognized as the goal of epilepsy treatment by patients, families, and in treatment guidelines and is associated with notably improved quality of life. However, many studies of epilepsy treatments (including antiseizure medications/antiepileptic drugs, neurostimulation, and dietary therapies) fail to report data on seizure freedom. Even among studies that include this outcome, methods for defining and analyzing seizure freedom vary considerably. Thus, the available data are often difficult to interpret and comparisons between studies are particularly challenging. Although these issues had been identified over a decade ago, there remains a lack of clarity and standardized methods used in analyzing and reporting seizure freedom outcomes in studies of epilepsy treatments. In addition, it remains unclear whether short-term seizure freedom outcomes from pivotal clinical trials are predictive of longer-term seizure freedom outcomes for patients with treatment-refractory epilepsy. Ultimately, the limitations of the available data lead to the potential for misinterpretation and misunderstanding of seizure freedom outcomes associated with the spectrum of available treatments when examining treatment options for patients. Clearly defined outcome analyses of seizure freedom attainment and duration are essential in future clinical studies of treatment for seizures to guide treatment selection and modification for patients.

Randomized phase 2 study of adjunctive cenobamate in patients with uncontrolled focal seizures

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive cenobamate 200 mg/d in patients with uncontrolled focal (partial-onset) seizures despite treatment with 1 to 3 antiepileptic drugs.

Methods

In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, adults 18 to 65 years of age with focal seizures were randomized 1:1 (cenobamate:placebo) after an 8-week baseline period. The 12-week double-blind treatment period consisted of a 6-week titration phase and a 6-week maintenance phase. The primary outcome was percent change in seizure frequency (from baseline) per 28 days during double-blind treatment.

Results

Two hundred twenty-two patients were randomized; 113 received cenobamate and 109 received placebo; and 90.3% and 90.8% of patients, respectively, completed double-blind treatment. Median baseline seizure frequency was 6.5 in 28 days (range 0–237). Compared to placebo, cenobamate conferred a greater median percent seizure reduction (55.6% vs 21.5%; p < 0.0001) The responder rate (≥50% reduction in seizure frequency) was 50.4% for cenobamate and 22.2% for placebo (p < 0.0001). Focal seizures with motor component, impaired awareness, and focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures were significantly reduced with cenobamate vs placebo. During maintenance, 28.3% of cenobamate-treated and 8.8% of placebo-treated patients were seizure-free. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported in >10% in either group (cenobamate vs placebo) were somnolence (22.1% vs 11.9%), dizziness (22.1% vs 16.5%), headache (12.4% vs 12.8%), nausea (11.5% vs 4.6%), and fatigue (10.6% vs 6.4%).

Conclusion

Adjunctive treatment with cenobamate 200 mg/d significantly improved seizure control in adults with uncontrolled focal seizures and was well tolerated.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier

NCT01397968.

Classification of evidence

This study provides Class I evidence that, for patients with uncontrolled focal seizures, adjunctive cenobamate reduces seizures.

Efficacy upon 12-weeks after achievement of maximal dose and tolerability of lacosamide as an adjunctive therapy in epilepsy: Real world clinical experience

Lacosamide (LCM) is a new generation antiepileptic drug. It has only been available in Asia in recent years. A retrospective study at two hospitals in Hong Kong was performed to investigate the post-marketing efficacy and tolerability of the drug. A total of 81 subjects were recruited, among which 88% had drug-resistant epilepsy. The most common type of epilepsy was focal with unknown etiology. All patients used LCM as adjunctive therapy. The 50% responder rate was 42% at 12 weeks after achievement of maximal dose of LCM. No specific factor correlated with responsiveness including concomitant enzyme-inducing or sodium channel blocking anticonvulsants. Withdrawal rate within first 12 weeks after drug initiation was 14% while that at any time upon follow-up was 23%. Two cases of uncommon adverse reaction of myoclonus were also reported. The mechanism was postulated to be the sodium channel inhibiting action of LCM. Our study has shown LCM to have comparable efficacy and tolerability in post-marketing experience when compared with the landmark randomized controlled trials.

The role of polytherapy in the management of epilepsy: suggestions for rational antiepileptic drug selection

Introduction: Antiepileptic polytherapy may be indicated in patients experiencing drug-resistant epilepsy. To date, there are no evidence-based criteria on how to combine different antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) together, in order to obtain the best therapeutic response.Areas covered: This paper reviews the available data about the various associations of AEDs in patients undergoing polytherapy, focusing on the most effective and well-tolerated polytherapies. Moreover, some controversial aspects of this topic are addressed.Expert opinion: Nowadays, there are no guidelines on polytherapy in patients with epilepsy; thus, the management of pharmacoresistant epilepsy is still uncertain, except for valproate/lamotrigine combination, which seems to be the only one recommended. Data regarding mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, tolerability, and, more importantly, the analysis of the valuable clinical studies of drug combinations can help physicians to choose the best and most effective AED association for each patient.

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.

Clinical opinion: Earlier employment of polytherapy in sequential pharmacotherapy of epilepsy

Modern pharmacotherapy for epilepsy consists of orderly, sequential drug trials, in which antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are chosen under the concept of individual patient-oriented (or - tailored) pharmacotherapy. Although monotherapy has been established as the preferred mode of AEDs therapy in both newly diagnosed and drug resistant epilepsies, there are still lack of evidence to favor either monotherapy or polytherapy in epilepsy, which has generated continuing controversies on the preferred mode of pharmacotherapy. However, each mode of pharmacotherapy may have both advantages and disadvantages, which are different and variable related to individual case scenario. We conducted a brief comparative overview between monotherapy and polytherapy to provide clues for earlier employment of polytherapy in each steps of sequential drug trials. Previous claims about the advantages of monotherapy over polytherapy are not supported but gradually losing its ground by the introduction of a large number of drugs carrying pharmacological advantages for combination therapy. Current evidence stresses the importance of combining drugs having synergistic interactions for better outcome of polytherapy, which has not been considered in previous clinical investigations comparing monotherapy and polytherapy. It is likely that a significant improvement in the outcome of current AEDs therapy is feasible by earlier employment of polytherapy as well as identification of combination drug regimens carrying synergistic interactions. At present, lamotrigine(LTG) and valproate(VPA) combination regimen is the only well documented synergistic regimen, but there are a long-list of candidate regimens requiring future trials in appropriate designs.

Antiepileptic Drug Therapy in Patients with Drug-Resistant Epilepsy

Antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy starts with an accurate diagnosis of epilepsy and is followed by sequential drug trials. Seizure freedom is largely achieved by the first two drug trials; thus, epilepsy that cannot be controlled after appropriately conducted trials of the first two drugs is defined as drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). It is still unclear which mode of pharmacotherapy, among monotherapy and polytherapy, shows better outcomes in cases of DRE. However, in a recent large hospital cohort study over past two decades, combination therapy was associated with a progressive increase in seizure-free rate than monotherapy in DRE. The benefits of polytherapy in the management of DRE might be related to the recent introduction of many new AEDs with different and novel mechanisms of action and better pharmacokinetic and tolerability profiles. These new AEDs were introduced to the market after they have proven their superiority over placebos in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on add-on therapy in patients with DRE. Therefore, polytherapy including these new AEDs in the regimen is the approved mode of treatment for cases of DRE; this has prompted physicians to try various combinations of polytherapy to optimize the clinical outcomes. In addition, the significant discrepancies in AED responder rates between RCTs and real-world practice may support the importance of judicious use of new drugs in polytherapy by experienced epileptologists. Most experts now agree to the concept of “rational polytherapy” consisting of mechanistic combinations of AEDs exerting synergistic interactions and to the importance of continuing trials of different rational polytherapy regimens to improve the outcome of the core population of epilepsy patients in the long term.

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.

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.

Potent and selective pharmacodynamic synergy between the metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 2-positive allosteric modulator JNJ-46356479 and levetiracetam in the mouse 6-Hz (44-mA) model

OBJECTIVE

We previously demonstrated that positive allosteric modulators (PAMs) of metabotropic glutamate subtype 2 (mGlu₂ ) receptors have potential synergistic interactions with the antiseizure drug levetiracetam (LEV). The present study utilizes isobolographic analysis to evaluate the combined administration of JNJ-46356479, a selective and potent mGlu₂ PAM, with LEV as well as sodium valproate (VPA) and lamotrigine (LTG).

METHODS

The anticonvulsant efficacy of JNJ-46356479 was evaluated in the 6-Hz model of psychomotor seizures in mice. JNJ-46356479 was administered in combination with LEV using 3 fixed dose-ratio treatment groups in the mouse 6-Hz (44-mA) seizure test. The combination of JNJ-46356479 with LEV was also evaluated in the mouse corneal kindling model. The potential interactions of JNJ-46356479 with the antiseizure drugs VPA and LTG were also evaluated using fixed dose-ratio combinations. Plasma levels were obtained for analysis of potential pharmacokinetic interactions for each combination studied in the mouse 6-Hz model.

RESULTS

JNJ-46356479 was active in the 6-Hz model at both 32-mA and 44-mA stimulus intensities (median effective dose = 2.8 and 10.2 mg/kg, respectively). Using 1:1, 1:3, and 3:1 fixed dose-ratio combinations (LEV:JNJ-46356479), coadministration was significantly more potent than predicted for additive effects, and plasma levels suggest this synergism was not due to pharmacokinetic interactions. Studies in kindled mice further demonstrate the positive pharmacodynamic interaction of LEV with JNJ-46356479. Using 1:1 dose-ratio combinations of JNJ-46356479 with either VPA or LTG, there were no significant differences observed for coadministration.

SIGNIFICANCE

These studies demonstrate a synergistic interaction of JNJ-46356479 with LEV, whereas no such effect occurred for JNJ-46356479 with either VPA or LTG. The synergy seems therefore to be specific to LEV, and the combination LEV/mGlu₂ PAM has the potential to result in a rational polypharmacy approach to treat patients with refractory epilepsy, once it has been confirmed in clinical studies.

Real life pharmaceutical treatment patterns for adult patients with focal epilepsy in Germany: a longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of recently approved anti-epileptic drugs

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment of adults suffering from focal epilepsies (FE) in Germany. Of special interest was the number and percentage of the patients 16 years and older receiving no treatment with an AED, treatment with one AED (monotherapy), treatment with more than one AED, and treatment with a novel AED. The definition for “novel” was newly approved at the time of market entry since 2006 (last 10 years): eslicarbazepine (ESL), lacosamide (LCM), perampanel (PER), and retigabine (RTG).

Methods: The analysis was based on a claims data set covering the years 2007 to 2014, provided by AOK PLUS, a German statutory health insurance. Two patient samples were defined: (1) prevalent patients suffering from FE (at least one in- or outpatient diagnosis of FE and at least one prescription of an AED), and (2) incident FE patients (first in- or outpatient diagnosis of FE without any previous diagnoses/AED prescriptions in the preceding 6 months). Patient observation started at date of first observed inpatient or outpatient focal epilepsy diagnosis within the analyzed period.

Each patient was classified as a “no AED therapy”, “AED monotherapy” or “more than one AED therapy”. Patients were analyzed by number and type of concomitantly prescribed AEDs in yearly tranches (no, one, two, three, four, more than four AEDs; novel versus non-novel AEDs).

Results: A total of 34,422 patients diagnosed with FE aged 16 year or older (mean age 59.6 years, 48.7% female) were identified. The mean follow-up period was 1,891 days (5.2 years) since first confirmed diagnosis.

The percentage of prevalent patients diagnosed with FE who received one AED (monotherapy) was stable overall and ranged between a minimum of 66.2% (2007) and a maximum of 68.9% (2010). The percentage of patients who received two AEDs ranged from 23.6% (2012) to 25.8% (2007). The remaining patients received therapies with three (6.0% in 2010 to 6.7% in 2007), four (1.0% in 2010 to 1.2% in 2009) or more than four AEDs (0.1% in 2014 to 0.3% in 2013). Between 8.1%–16.6% (2007; 2014) of the patients received no AED therapy in the observed period.

In the first year after the diagnosis of FE (incident patients), 9.7% of patients didn’t receive any AED therapy. Of those treated with at least one AED, 80.0% received one AED (monotherapy) only, 17.0% received therapy with two AEDs, 2.6% with three AEDs, 0.3% with four AEDs, and 0.1% with >4 AEDs during the respective observation time window and remained stable throughout the four-year follow-up period.

Of prevalent patients with a diagnosis of FE, 1,889 (5.5%) received at least one prescription of a novel AED during the observation period; 98.6% of these patients received the novel AED in combination with at least one other AED. Of those patients, 269 (14.2%) received >1 novel AED. The analysis of the patients receiving novel AEDs by the time from the first confirmed diagnosis of FE until the prescription of a novel AED resulted in a mean duration of 4.0 years (SD 2.0) for ESL, 3.6 years (SD 2.2) for LCM, 5.7 years (SD 1.2) for PER, and 4.6 years (SD 0.8 years) for RTG. The mean number of AEDs prescribed before the novel AEDs were 3.2 for ESL, 2.4 for LCM, 5.0 for PER and 5.2 for RTG.

Conclusions: Most patients aged 16 years or older, suffering from focal seizures, received AED monotherapy. Novel AEDs were prescribed in a small proportion of patients (<6%) and relatively late in the treatment course. These results are consistent with the recommendations of the German Society for Epileptology (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Epileptologie, DGfE) which suggests a number of monotherapy options – these options do not include the novel AEDs described in this study.

Lacosamide and sodium channel-blocking antiepileptic drug cross-titration against levetiracetam background therapy

OBJECTIVE

To assess prospectively the effectiveness of lacosamide (LCM) added to levetiracetam (LEV) after down-titration of a concomitant sodium channel blocker (SCB) among patients with focal epilepsy not adequately controlled on LEV and SCB.

METHODS

In this open-label trial, LCM was initiated at 100 mg/day and up-titrated to 200-600 mg/day over 9 weeks; SCB down-titration started when LCM dose reached 200 mg/day. Patients remained on stable LCM/LEV doses for 12 weeks' maintenance (21-week treatment period). The primary outcome was retention rate on LCM.

RESULTS

Due to recruitment challenges, fewer than the planned 300 patients participated in the trial, resulting in the trial being underpowered. Overall, 120 patients (mean age 39.7 years) started and 93 completed the trial. The most frequently used SCBs were lamotrigine (39.2%), carbamazepine (30.8%) and oxcarbazepine (27.5%). Eighty-four patients adhered to protocol and discontinued their SCB after cross-titration, but there was insufficient evidence for 36 patients. Retention rate was 73.3% (88/120) for all patients and 83.3% (70/84) for those with evidence of SCB discontinuation. Seizure freedom for patients completing maintenance was 14.0% (13/93). Discontinuation due to adverse events (6.7%) and lack of efficacy (3.3%) occurred primarily during cross-titration. Most frequently reported adverse events during treatment were dizziness (23.3%), headache (15.0%) and fatigue (8.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with uncontrolled seizures on LEV/SCB, the LCM/LEV combination appeared to be effective and well tolerated. A cross-titration schedule-flexible LCM up-titration, concomitant SCB down-titration and stable background LEV-could present a feasible and practical approach to initiating LCM while minimizing pharmacodynamic interactions with a SCB.

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.

Lacosamide for uncontrolled primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures: An open-label pilot study with 59-week extension

OBJECTIVE

Assess the safety of adjunctive lacosamide for the treatment of uncontrolled primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in patients (16-65 years) with primary generalized (genetic) epilepsy (PGE).

METHODS

An open-label pilot safety study (SP0961; NCT01118949), comprising 12 weeks' historical baseline, 4 weeks' prospective baseline, 3 weeks' titration (target: 400mg/day adjunctive lacosamide) and 6 weeks' maintenance. Patients who continued to the extension study (SP0962; NCT01118962) then received ≤59 weeks of flexible treatment (100-800mg/day lacosamide with flexible dosing of concomitant antiepileptic drugs). The primary outcomes for SP0961 were the mean change (±standard deviation) in absence seizure or myoclonic seizure days per 28days from prospective baseline to maintenance; for SP0962, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and withdrawals because of TEAEs.

RESULTS

Of the 49 patients who enrolled, 40 (82%) completed the pilot study and 9 discontinued (5 because of adverse events). Of the 39 patients who continued to the extension study, 10 discontinued (2 owing to TEAEs) and 29 (74%) completed the study. During the pilot study, patients reported a reduction in mean (±standard deviation) absence and myoclonic seizure days per 28days (-0.37±4.80, -2.19±5.80). Reductions were also observed during the extension study (-2.38±5.54, -2.78±6.43). Five patients in SP0961 and 2 patients in SP0962 experienced TEAEs of new or increased frequency of absence seizures or myoclonic seizures. The most common TEAEs during SP0961 were dizziness (39%) and nausea (27%), and during SP0962 were dizziness (26%) and upper respiratory tract infection (26%).

CONCLUSIONS

The safety profile of adjunctive lacosamide was similar to that previously published. Adjunctive lacosamide did not systematically worsen absence or myoclonic seizures, and appears to be well tolerated in patients with PGE.

Lacosamide in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy: An observational multicentric open-label study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide (LCM) both as add-on therapy and monotherapy in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) based on an observational, prospective, multicenter study.

METHODS

We enrolled 100 patients (mean age: 43.4±12.53years, 57 females) with nonlesional TLE and TLE with hippocampal sclerosis (HS) that did not respond to the first drug and who were referred to epilepsy centers of the University of Catanzaro, University of Palermo, IRCSS Neuromed of Pozzilli, and Otto-von-Guericke University of Magdeburg. In this open-label, multicenter trial, patients were initiated on oral LCM as add-on therapy to first AED monotherapy or as a later add-on to two concomitant AEDs. Seizure frequency changes and adverse events were recorded for at least six months after LCM was added.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients dropped out because of positive MRI findings other than HS. Patients received LCM at 200-400mg/day. Fifty-eight out of these 86 patients with seizures that were previously drug-resistant had reduced seizure frequency after introduction of LCM. Forty-five out of 86 patients were classified as responders (12 were seizure-free, 33 achieved a reduction >50%). Interestingly, five patients out of 86 achieved seizure freedom for at least one year and progressively switched to monotherapy with LCM, and all five remained seizure-free at follow-up (6-48months).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results may suggest that LCM at doses of 200 to 400mg/day reduces seizure frequency in adults with TLE regardless of the presence of HS, and that it may be considered as a first add-on treatment for patients with pharmacoresistant TLE.

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

This noninterventional, observational, postauthorization safety study (SP0942, NCT00771927) evaluated the incidence of predefined cardiovascular- (CV) and psychiatric-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), in patients with epilepsy and uncontrolled partial-onset seizures, when initiating adjunctive therapy with lacosamide or another approved antiepileptic drug (AED) according to standard medical practice. Active recording of predefined TEAEs of interest took place at three-monthly recommended visits for up to 12months. Of 1004 patients who received at least one dose of adjunctive AEDs, 511 initially added lacosamide therapy, 493 added another AED, 69 were ≥65years of age, and 72 took concomitant antiarrhythmic drugs. Patients in the lacosamide cohort had a higher median frequency of partial-onset seizures (6.0 versus 3.5 per 28days) despite taking more concomitant AEDs (84.9% versus 66.9% took ≥2) at baseline. Patients who added lacosamide took a modal dose of 200mg/day over the treatment period (n=501), and 50.1% (256/511) completed 12months of treatment. Fifty-one point nine percent (256/493) of patients who added another AED completed the study, with the most commonly added AED being levetiracetam (28.4%). Four patients (0.8%) in each cohort, all <65years of age, reported predefined CV-related TEAEs. None were considered serious or led to discontinuation. One event each of sinus bradycardia (lacosamide), atrioventricular block first degree (lacosamide), and syncope (other AED) were judged to be treatment-related. Another patient in the other AED cohort reported bradycardia while taking concomitant antiarrhythmic drugs. Predefined psychiatric-related TEAEs were reported by 21 patients (4.1%) in the lacosamide cohort and 27 patients (5.5%) in the other AED cohort. Depression was the most common to be treatment-related (7/11 and 12/18 of patients reporting treatment-related psychiatric TEAEs, respectively). Serious psychiatric-related TEAEs were reported by four patients who added lacosamide (two cases of depression, two of suicide attempt) and one who added another AED (depression). Seven deaths occurred, all of which were considered unrelated/unlikely related to study medication. This thorough evaluation revealed a low incidence of predefined CV- and psychiatric-related TEAEs in patients taking adjunctive AED therapy according to standard medical practice. No specific safety concerns related to adjunctive lacosamide therapy were noted.

Lacosamide tolerability in adult patients with partial-onset seizures: Impact of planned reduction and mechanism of action of concomitant antiepileptic drugs

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the impact of planned dose reduction and mechanism of action of concomitant AEDs on tolerability in adults with partial-onset seizures undergoing lacosamide (LCM) titration.

METHODS

Data were collected at baseline and 3-6 and 12-24 months post-LCM initiation. Subjects were categorized as having planned reduction of concomitant AEDs or not; AEDs were categorized as traditional sodium channel blockers (TSCB) or non-TSCB (NTSCB). Groups with/without planned reduction were compared on the presence and number of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) using chi-square tests or logistic regression and on time to LCM discontinuation with time-to-event methods controlling for standardized (STD) AED dose, a measure of concomitant AED load. Similar analyses were performed comparing subjects taking TSCB and NTSCB agents and used to identify relationships with ≥50% decreases in seizure frequency.

RESULTS

One hundred six adults (mean age 41.4 ± 13.4; 50% male) underwent LCM titration from June 2009-2011 with complete data. Reduction of concomitant AEDs was planned at the time of LCM initiation in 59 (55.7%) subjects. Fewer subjects with planned reduction had TEAEs (49.2% vs. 68.1%; p=0.05), and these subjects had a lower risk of TEAEs (OR 0.36; p=0.019) after adjusting for STD AED dose. The hazard ratio (95% CI) for LCM discontinuation was 0.46 (0.23, 0.94) in subjects with planned reduction of concomitant AEDs vs. others (p=0.033) and 3.29 (1.01, 10.70) in subjects taking TSCB vs. NTSCB agents (p=0.048). Among all cases, those who ever had TEAEs had significantly higher STD dose at both follow-up visits (p=0.033 and p=0.023, respectively). Seizure outcomes were not significantly different between groups at the last follow-up assessment.

SIGNIFICANCE

Planned reduction of concomitant AEDs during LCM initiation and the use of NTSCB agents only are associated with a reduced risk of TEAEs and LCM discontinuation in adults with partial-onset seizures. This study extends prior observations by considering total AED load in the assessment of tolerability and supports the benefits of early reduction of concomitant AEDs during LCM initiation.

Epilepsy and brain tumors

Seizures are common in patients with brain tumors, and epilepsy can significantly impact patient quality of life. Therefore, a thorough understanding of rates and predictors of seizures, and the likelihood of seizure freedom after resection, is critical in the treatment of brain tumors. Among all tumor types, seizures are most common with glioneuronal tumors (70-80%), particularly in patients with frontotemporal or insular lesions. Seizures are also common in individuals with glioma, with the highest rates of epilepsy (60-75%) observed in patients with low-grade gliomas located in superficial cortical or insular regions. Approximately 20-50% of patients with meningioma and 20-35% of those with brain metastases also suffer from seizures. After tumor resection, approximately 60-90% are rendered seizure-free, with most favorable seizure outcomes seen in individuals with glioneuronal tumors. Gross total resection, earlier surgical therapy, and a lack of generalized seizures are common predictors of a favorable seizure outcome. With regard to anticonvulsant medication selection, evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of focal epilepsy should be followed, and individual patient factors should also be considered, including patient age, sex, organ dysfunction, comorbidity, or cotherapy. As concomitant chemotherapy commonly forms an essential part of glioma treatment, enzyme-inducing anticonvulsants should be avoided when possible. Seizure freedom is the ultimate goal in the treatment of brain tumor patients with epilepsy, given the adverse effects of seizures on quality of life.

A noninterventional study evaluating the effectiveness and safety of lacosamide added to monotherapy in patients with epilepsy with partial-onset seizures in daily clinical practice: The VITOBA study

Objective

Evidence for the efficacy and safety of adjunctive lacosamide in the treatment of partial‐onset seizures (POS) was gained during placebo‐controlled clinical trials in patients with treatment‐resistant seizures who were taking one to three concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). The VITOBA study (NCT01098162) evaluated the effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive lacosamide added to one baseline AED in real‐world clinical practice.

Methods

We conducted a 6‐month observational study at 112 sites across Germany. Adult patients (≥16 years) with POS received lacosamide adjunctive to only one baseline AED. Seizure frequency reduction at the end of the observation period was compared with a 3‐month retrospective baseline period.

Results

Five hundred seventy‐one patients received lacosamide at least once (Safety Set [SS]); 520 provided evaluable seizure records (Full Analysis Set [FAS]); and 499 took in‐label dosages of lacosamide (up to 400 mg) and were evaluated for effectiveness (modified FAS). Median baseline seizure frequency was 2.0 per 28 days: 47.1% of patients (235/499, mFAS) took a concomitant sodium channel–blocking (SCB) AED; 38.1% (190/499) had only one lifetime AED; and 18.4% (92/499) were aged ≥65 years (mFAS). At the final visit, 72.5% (358/494) of patients showed a ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency from baseline, 63.8% (315/494) showed a ≥75% reduction, and 45.5% (225/494) were seizure‐free. Seizure freedom rates were higher in patients aged ≥65 years (56.7%) compared with patients aged <65 years (43.1%), in patients with ≤5 years epilepsy duration (52.5%) versus >5 years duration (41.0%), and when added to first monotherapy (60.5%) rather than as a later therapy option. Treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 48.5% (277/571) of patients (SS), with a profile similar to that observed in pivotal trials; 466 of patients (81.6%, SS) continued lacosamide therapy after the trial.

Significance

These results suggest that lacosamide use, added to one concomitant AED, was effective at improving seizure control and was well tolerated in patients treated in routine clinical practice.

Lacosamide cardiac safety: a thorough QT/QTc trial in healthy volunteers

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether lacosamide prolongs the corrected QT interval (QTc).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, positive- and placebo-controlled, parallel-design trial, healthy volunteers were randomized to lacosamide 400 mg/day (maximum-recommended daily dose, 6 days), lacosamide 800 mg/day (supratherapeutic dose, 6 days), placebo (6 days), or moxifloxacin 400 mg/day (3 days). Variables included maximum time-matched change from baseline in QT interval individually corrected for heart rate ([HR] QTcI), other ECG parameters, pharmacokinetics (PK), and safety/tolerability.

RESULTS

The QTcI mean maximum difference from placebo was -4.3 ms and -6.3 ms for lacosamide 400 and 800 mg/day; upper limits of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval were below the 10 ms non-inferiority margin (-0.5 and -2.5 ms, respectively). Placebo-corrected QTcI for moxifloxacin was +10.4 ms (lower 90% confidence bound >0 [6.6 ms]), which established assay sensitivity for this trial. As lacosamide did not increase QTcI, the trial is considered a negative QTc trial. There was no dose-related or clinically relevant effect on QRS duration. HR increased from baseline by ~5 bpm with lacosamide 800 mg/day versus placebo. Placebo-subtracted mean increases in PR interval at tmax were 7.3 ms (400 mg/day) and 11.9 ms (800 mg/day). There were no findings of second-degree or higher atrioventricular block. Adverse events (AEs) were dose related and most commonly involved the nervous and gastrointestinal systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Lacosamide (≤ 800 mg/day) did not prolong the QTc interval. Lacosamide caused a small, dose-related increase in mean PR interval that was not associated with AEs. Cardiac, overall safety, and PK profiles for lacosamide in healthy volunteers were consistent with those observed in patients with partial-onset seizures.

Safety and tolerability of lacosamide as adjunctive therapy for adults with partial-onset seizures: Analysis of data pooled from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe a priori protocol-defined analyses to evaluate the safety and tolerability of adjunctive oral lacosamide (200-600 mg/day) in adults (ages 16-70 years) with partial-onset seizures (POS) using data pooled from three similarly designed randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (SP667, SP754 [NCT00136019], SP755 [NCT00220415]).

METHODS

Patients with POS (≥2 years' duration, ≥2 previous antiepileptic drugs [AEDs]) uncontrolled by a stable dosing regimen of 1-3 concomitant AEDs were randomized to treatment with lacosamide at doses of 200 mg/day, 400 mg/day, or 600 mg/day, or placebo. Studies comprised a 4- to 6-week titration phase to target dose followed by a 12-week maintenance phase. Safety outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of particular relevance to patients with POS, overall TEAEs, and discontinuations due to TEAEs. Post hoc analyses included evaluation of TEAEs potentially related to cognition and TEAEs leading to discontinuation analyzed by concomitant AEDs.

RESULTS

One thousand three hundred eight patients were randomized to and received treatment; 944 to lacosamide and 364 to placebo. Most patients (84.4%) were taking 2 or 3 concomitant AEDs. The most common drug-associated TEAEs (reported by ≥5% of patients in any lacosamide dose group and with an incidence at least twice that reported for placebo during the treatment phase) were dizziness (30.6% for lacosamide vs 8.2% for placebo), nausea (11.4% vs 4.4%), and diplopia (10.5% vs 1.9%). Common drug-associated TEAEs generally appeared to be dose-related, and the incidence of each was lower during the 12-week maintenance phase than during the titration phase. Most TEAEs were either mild or moderate in intensity; severe TEAEs were predominantly observed with lacosamide 600 mg/day. No individual serious TEAE occurred in ≥1% of all lacosamide-treated patients. Treatment-emergent adverse events led to discontinuation in 8.1%, 17.2%, and 28.6% of the lacosamide 200-, 400-, and 600-mg/day groups, respectively (vs 4.9% of placebo). Few TEAEs were related to rash, weight loss/gain, changes in clinical chemistry parameters, or psychiatric disturbances, or were seizure-related. The odds of reporting any potential cognition-related TEAE vs placebo increased with dose and were similar between lacosamide doses of 200 and 400mg/day and placebo (odds ratio 1.3, 95% confidence interval 0.7-2.4). Discontinuations due to TEAEs based on most commonly used AEDs taken in combination with lacosamide (all doses combined) were carbamazepine (15.3% [51/334] vs 3.9% [5/129] placebo), lamotrigine (19.2% [56/291] vs 4.3% [5/117]), and levetiracetam (10.1% [28/278] vs 3.9% [4/103]).

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and tolerability profile of adjunctive lacosamide in this detailed evaluation was similar to that observed in the individual double-blind trials. Adjunctive lacosamide was associated with TEAEs related to the nervous system and gastrointestinal tract, predominantly during titration.

Pharmacotherapy for Status Epilepticus

Status epilepticus (SE) represents the most severe form of epilepsy. It is one of the most common neurologic emergencies, with an incidence of up to 61 per 100,000 per year and an estimated mortality of 20 %. Clinically, tonic-clonic convulsive SE is divided into four subsequent stages: early, established, refractory, and super-refractory. Pharmacotherapy of status epilepticus, especially of its later stages, represents an "evidence-free zone," due to a lack of high-quality, controlled trials to inform clinical decisions. This comprehensive narrative review focuses on the pharmacotherapy of SE, presented according to the four-staged approach outlined above, and providing pharmacological properties and efficacy/safety data for each antiepileptic drug according to the strength of scientific evidence from the available literature. Data sources included MEDLINE and back-tracking of references in pertinent studies. Intravenous lorazepam or intramuscular midazolam effectively control early SE in approximately 63-73 % of patients. Despite a suboptimal safety profile, intravenous phenytoin or phenobarbital are widely used treatments for established SE; alternatives include valproate, levetiracetam, and lacosamide. Anesthetics are widely used in refractory and super-refractory SE, despite the current lack of trials in this field. Data on alternative treatments in the later stages are limited. Valproate and levetiracetam represent safe and effective alternatives to phenobarbital and phenytoin for treatment of established SE persisting despite first-line treatment with benzodiazepines. To date there are no class I data to support recommendations for most antiepileptic drugs for established, refractory, and super-refractory SE. Limiting the methodologic heterogeneity across studies is required and high-class randomized, controlled trials to inform clinicians about the best treatment in established and refractory status are needed.

A sensitive and rapid method for quantification of lacosamide and desmethyl lacosamide by LC-MS/MS

BACKGROUND

Monitoring lacosamide (LCM) helps optimize therapeutic dosing in some clinical settings. We developed a novel LC-MS/MS method for measuring serum LCM and O-desmethyl lacosamide (ODL).

RESULTS/DISCUSSION

The sample preparation was protein precipitation with methanol. The total CV was less than 4.7%. Calibration range was 0.95-30.29 µg/ml and 0.95-30.41 µg/ml while the expanded linear range was 0.41-47.49 µg/ml and 0.34-48.17 µg/ml for LCM and ODL, respectively with analytical accuracy of 87.2-106.0%. 45 random serum samples collected from 23 individuals on either 200 mg/day or 400 mg/day of LCM therapy showed concentrations of 2.2-19.8 µg/ml for LCM and up to 2.5 µg/ml for ODL.

CONCLUSION

A simple and sensitive LC-MS/MS assay was validated for quantification of LCM and ODL in human serum.

Acute or chronic use of lacosamide does not alter its distribution between serum and cerebrospinal fluid

OBJECTIVE

The site of action for antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is within the brain; however, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) concentration is highly variable. Lacosamide (LCM) is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of partial-onset seizures in adults, and has linear pharmacokinetics in serum. Penetration across the blood-brain barrier (BBB) is unknown. This study aims to provide additional insights into the pharmacokinetics of LCM.

METHODS

Thirty adults undergoing craniotomy for treatment of intractable epilepsy or brain tumor were recruited and were either taking LCM long term (group 1, n = 15), or were LCM naive, receiving LCM as prophylaxis for surgery (group 2, n = 15). All patients received one intravenous (IV) dose (15 min infusion) immediately prior to craniotomy. CSF and arterial blood were collected simultaneously following craniotomy. LCM concentrations were measured in serum and CSF.

RESULTS

LCM concentration differences between groups 1 and 2 for both CSF and serum were statistically significant (p ≤ 0.0005), but there was no statistically significant difference in CSF/serum ratios (group 1 = 0.726 ± 0.231; group 2 = 0.556 ±0.241; p = 0.0585). LCM concentration in serum correlated positively with CSF concentration in group 1 (Pearson r = 0.8527, p < 0.0001). The time interval between the end of dose delivery and sample collection correlated positively with the CSF/serum ratio for the drug-naive group (Pearson r = 0.6525; p = 0.0084). Treatment with other AEDs did not affect LCM distribution between serum and CSF.

SIGNIFICANCE

Although chronic dosing resulted in higher LCM concentrations in serum and CSF compared to drug-naive patients, the CSF/serum ratio was not affected by LCM pretreatment. These data suggest that LCM serum concentration may reliably predict CSF concentration.

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 add-on therapy for partial epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Around half of people with epilepsy will not achieve seizure freedom on their first antiepileptic drug; many will require add-on treatment with another drug. Sometimes multiple treatment combinations are tried to achieve maximum seizure control, although around a third of people do not achieve complete seizure control. Lacosamide is an antiepileptic drug that has been licensed as an add-on treatment for partial epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide when used as an add-on treatment for patients with drug-resistant partial epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register (21 May 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL , The Cochrane Library Issue 4, April 2015), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 21 May 2015), Scopus (1823 to 13 November 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (21 May 2015) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 21 May 2015). We imposed no language restrictions. We contacted UCB (sponsors of lacosamide) and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of add-on lacosamide in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: (1) 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; (2) seizure freedom; (3) treatment withdrawal for any reason; and (4) adverse events. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. Summary risk ratios were estimated for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials in our review (1311 participants), which were classified as having low risk of bias. All trials were placebo-controlled and assessed doses ranging from 200 mg to 600 mg per day. Trial duration ranged from 24 to 26 weeks. All trials used adequate methods of randomisation and were double-blind. Overall the quality of the evidence was rated as moderate to high. The overall risk ratio for a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 1.70 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.38 to 2.10); for seizure freedom for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 2.50 (95% CI 0.85 to 7.34); and for treatment withdrawal for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 1.88 (95% CI 1.40 to 2.52). Adverse effects significantly associated with lacosamide were abnormal co-ordination (risk ratio (RR) 6.12, 99% CI 1.35 to 27.77), diplopia (RR 5.29, 99% CI 1.97 to 14.23), dizziness (RR 3.53, 99% CI 2.20 to 5.68), nausea (RR 2.37, 99% CI 1.23 to 4.58) and vomiting (RR 3.49, 99% CI 1.43 to 8.54). Adverse effects that were not statistically significant were headache (RR 1.34, 99% CI 0.83 to 2.18), fatigue (RR 2.11, 99% CI 0.92 to 4.85), nystagmus (RR 1.47, 99% CI 0.61 to 3.52) and somnolence (RR 1.44, 99% CI 0.67 to 3.09).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review has shown lacosamide to be effective and fairly well tolerated in the short term when used as add-on treatment for drug-resistant partial epilepsy in adults. Higher doses of lacosamide may be more associated with adverse effects and withdrawal of the drug than lower doses. Additional evidence on children is needed, and longer-term efficacy is unknown.

Cognitive effects of lacosamide as adjunctive therapy in refractory epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Lacosamide (LCM) is a novel antiepileptic drug (AED) with potential benefit as adjunctive treatment in patients with partial-onset seizures. As yet, limited information on cognitive effects of LCM is available, especially in real-life settings.

AIMS

In this open clinical prospective study, the cognitive effects of LCM were evaluated when used as adjunctive antiepileptic therapy in patients with refractory epilepsy.

METHODS

We included 33 patients aged between 16 and 74 years (mean: 37 years). All patients had a localization-related epilepsy. Patients were assessed at baseline before starting LCM treatment and during follow-up when the optimal clinical dose was achieved.

MATERIALS

Subjective complaints were evaluated using the SIDAED; effects on cognition were evaluated using the computerized visual searching task (CVST).

RESULTS

The CVST showed significant faster information processing reaction times at the second evaluation (P = 0.013), which was not correlated with seizure control, type of epilepsy, age, gender, drug load, number of concomitant drugs, dose or duration of LCM treatment. On the SIDAED, patients complained more about their cognitive function at the second evaluation (P = 0.005). For the SIDAED, a positive correlation at follow-up was found between the total severity score and higher age (r = 0.375, P = 0.031), but not with epilepsy factors or treatment characteristics.

DISCUSSION/CONLUSION

Screening of the cognitive effects of LCM showed that LCM does not have negative effects on information processing speed. As this is the most sensitive function for cognitive side effects of AEDs, LCM does not seem to induce the common negative cognitive effects. Remarkably, patients complained more, especially about their cognitive function, which is possible the 'doing better, feeling worse phenomenon'.

Safety and efficacy of adjunctive lacosamide among patients with partial-onset seizures in a long-term open-label extension trial of up to 8 years

Long-term (up to 8 years of exposure) safety and efficacy of the antiepileptic drug lacosamide was evaluated in this open-label extension trial (SP615 [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00552305]). Patients were enrolled following participation in a double-blind trial or one of two open-label trials of adjunctive lacosamide for partial-onset seizures. Dosage adjustments of lacosamide (100-800 mg/day) and/or concomitant antiepileptic drugs were allowed to optimize tolerability and seizure reduction. Of the 370 enrolled patients, 77%, 51%, and 39% had >1, >3, or >5 years of lacosamide exposure, respectively. Median lacosamide modal dose was 400mg/day. Common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were dizziness (39.7%), headache (20.8%), nausea (17.3%), diplopia (17.0%), fatigue (16.5%), upper respiratory tract infection (16.5%), nasopharyngitis (16.2%), and contusion (15.4%). Dizziness (2.2%) was the only TEAE that led to discontinuation in >2% of patients. Ranges for median percent reductions in seizure frequency were 47-65%, and those for ≥ 50% responder rates were 49-63% for 1-, 3-, and 5-year completer cohorts. Exposure to lacosamide for up to 8 years was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to previous double-blind trials, and efficacy was maintained.

New generation antiepileptic drugs: what do they offer in terms of improved tolerability and safety?

Over the last two decades a total of 11 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) have been introduced to the US market. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials have yielded information about each drug's efficacy, tolerability, and safety profile; however, few studies have compared the newer generation AEDs directly with the older generation. Comparative studies are not always straightforward in their interpretation, as many characteristics of drugs, both favorable and unfavorable, may not be highlighted by such studies. In general, findings from the literature suggest that the newer generation AEDs (including vigabatrin, felbamate, gabapentin, lamotrigine, tiagabine, topiramate, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, zonisamide, pregabalin, rufinamide, and lacosamide) enjoy both improved tolerability and safety compared with older agents such as phenobarbital, phenytoin, carbamazepine, and valproate. This is partially supported by some of the findings of the QSS and the TTA Committee of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), whose review of four AEDs (gabapentin, lamotrigine, topiramate, and tiagabine) is discussed. Briefly, when compared with carbamazepine, lamotrigine was better tolerated; topiramate adverse events (AEs) were fairly comparable to carbamazepine and valproate; and tiagabine compared with placebo was associated with a higher discontinuation rate due to AEs. The findings of the SANAD trial are also presented; when administered to patients with partial epilepsy, carbamazepine was most likely to fail due to AEs, and lamotrigine and gabapentin were least likely to fail due to AEs. When administered to patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy, topiramate was most frequently associated with AE-related discontinuation, followed by valproate; and while valproate was the most efficacious drug in this arm of the study, lamotrigine was more tolerable. What makes the SANAD study valuable and somewhat unique is its head-to-head comparison of one drug with another. Such comparative trials are overall lacking for new AEDs, although some conclusions can be drawn from the available data. In the end, however, AED selection must be based on individual patient and drug characteristics.