Eslicarbazepine acetate as a therapeutic option in a patient with carbamazepine-induced rash and HLA-A*31:01

Trigeminal neuralgia: An overview from pathophysiology to pharmacological treatments

The trigeminal nerve (V) is the fifth and largest of all cranial nerves, and it is responsible for detecting sensory stimuli that arise from the craniofacial area. The nerve is divided into three branches: ophthalmic (V1), maxillary (V2), and mandibular (V3); their cell bodies are located in the trigeminal ganglia and they make connections with second-order neurons in the trigeminal brainstem sensory nuclear complex. Ascending projections via the trigeminothalamic tract transmit information to the thalamus and other brain regions responsible for interpreting sensory information. One of the most common forms of craniofacial pain is trigeminal neuralgia. Trigeminal neuralgia is characterized by sudden, brief, and excruciating facial pain attacks in one or more of the V branches, leading to a severe reduction in the quality of life of affected patients. Trigeminal neuralgia etiology can be classified into idiopathic, classic, and secondary. Classic trigeminal neuralgia is associated with neurovascular compression in the trigeminal root entry zone, which can lead to demyelination and a dysregulation of voltage-gated sodium channel expression in the membrane. These alterations may be responsible for pain attacks in trigeminal neuralgia patients. The antiepileptic drugs carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine are the first-line pharmacological treatment for trigeminal neuralgia. Their mechanism of action is a modulation of voltage-gated sodium channels, leading to a decrease in neuronal activity. Although carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine are the first-line treatment, other drugs may be useful for pain control in trigeminal neuralgia. Among them, the anticonvulsants gabapentin, pregabalin, lamotrigine and phenytoin, baclofen, and botulinum toxin type A can be coadministered with carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine for a synergistic approach. New pharmacological alternatives are being explored such as the active metabolite of oxcarbazepine, eslicarbazepine, and the new Nav1.7 blocker vixotrigine. The pharmacological profiles of these drugs are addressed in this review.

Eslicarbazepine acetate in the treatment of adults with partial-onset epilepsy: an evidence-based review of efficacy, safety and place in therapy

INTRODUCTION

Up to 30% of the patients diagnosed with epilepsy will continue suffering from seizures despite treatment with antiepileptic drugs, either in monotherapy or polytherapy. Hence, there remains the need to develop new effective and well-tolerated therapies.

AIM

The objective of this article was to review the evidence for the efficacy and safety of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as adjunctive treatment in adult patients with focal onset seizures.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

ESL is the newest, third-generation, single enantiomer member of the dibenzazepine family. Following oral administration, ESL is rapidly and extensively metabolized by hepatic first-pass hydrolysis to the active metabolite eslicarbazepine, which has linear, dose-proportional pharmacokinetics and low potential for drug-drug interactions. Eslicarbazepine works as a competitive blocker of the voltage gated sodium channels; unlike carbamazepine (CBZ) and oxcarbazepine (OXC), it has a lower affinity for the resting state of the channels, and reduces their availability by selectively enhancing slow inactivation. Efficacy and safety of ESL have been assessed in four randomized, Phase III clinical trials: the median relative reduction in standardized seizure frequency was 33.4% and 37.8% in the ESL 800 and 1,200 mg daily dose groups, and the responder rates were 33.8% and 43.1%, respectively. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) increased with raising the dosage (ESL 400 mg: 63.8%, ESL 800 mg: 67.0%, ESL 1,200 mg: 73.1%). The TEAEs were generally mild to moderate in intensity, and the most common were dizziness, somnolence, headache and nausea. Open-label studies confirmed the findings from the pivotal trials and demonstrated sustained therapeutic effect of ESL over time and improvement of tolerability profile in patients switching from OXC/CBZ. No unexpected safety signals emerged over >5 years of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Once-daily adjunctive ESL at the doses of 800 and 1,200 mg was effective to reduce the seizure frequency and was fairly well tolerated in adults with focal onset epilepsy. Starting treatment at 400 mg/day, followed by 400 mg increments every 7-14 days, could provide the optimal balance of efficacy and tolerability.

Eslicarbazepine acetate in epilepsies with focal and secondary generalised seizures: systematic review of current evidence

INTRODUCTION

Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is a third-generation antiepileptic drug (AED) approved for adjunctive treatment in adults, children, and adolescents with focal-onset seizures. Recently ESL was approved for initial monotherapy in adults. The intention of this article is to review current evidence for ESL and to summarise its pharmacological profile in comparison to other AEDs of the dibenzazepine group. Areas covered: We performed a systematic literature search in electronic databases (MEDLINE database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Excerpta Medica dataBASE) using a combined search strategy including the following keywords: eslicarbazepine, epilepsy and seizure. The search was performed from 2000 until December 2017. Using a standardised assessment form, information on the study design, methodological framework, data sources and efficacy and adverse events attributed to ESL were extracted from each publication and systematically reported. Expert commentary: ESL is an effective, safe and well tolerated third-generation AED for the treatment of focal epilepsies. During therapy, especially serum sodium levels and possible interactions with other substances have to be monitored. As of yet, long-term experience is still needed to make severe late-occurring adverse events unlikely and to obtain data regarding its use in pregnancy.

Postmarketing experience with brivaracetam in the treatment of epilepsies: A multicenter cohort study from Germany

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate factors predicting efficacy, retention, and tolerability of add-on brivaracetam (BRV) in clinical practice.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective cohort study recruiting all patients who started BRV between February and November 2016 with observation time between 3 and 12 months.

RESULTS

Of a total of 262 patients (mean age 40, range 5-81 years, 129 male) treated with BRV, 227 (87%) were diagnosed to have focal, 19 (7%) idiopathic generalized and 8 (3%) symptomatic generalized epilepsy, whereas 8 (3%) were unclassified. The length of exposure to BRV ranged from 1 day to 12 months, with a median retention time of 6.1 months, resulting in a total exposure time to BRV of 1,504 months. The retention rate was 79.4% at 3 months and 75.8% at 6 months. Efficacy at 3 months was 41.2% (50% responder rate) with 14.9% seizure-free for 3 months and, at 6 months, 40.5% with 15.3% seizure-free. Treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 37.8% of the patients, with the most common being somnolence, dizziness, and behavioral adverse events (BAEs). BAE that presented under previous levetiracetam (LEV) treatment improved upon switch to BRV in 57.1% (20/35) and LEV-induced somnolence improved in 70.8% (17/24). Patients with BAE on LEV were more likely to develop BAE on BRV (odds ratio [OR] 3.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53-7.95).

SIGNIFICANCE

BRV in broad clinical postmarketing use is a well-tolerated anticonvulsant drug with 50% responder rates, similar to those observed in the regulatory trials, even though 90% of the patients included had previously been exposed to LEV. An immediate switch from LEV to BRV at a ratio of 10:1 to 15:1 is feasible. The only independent significant predictor of efficacy was the start of BRV in patients not currently taking LEV. The occurrence of BAE during previous LEV exposure predicted poor psychobehavioral tolerability of BRV treatment. A switch to BRV can be considered in patients with LEV-induced BAE.