Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of weight-based IV loading dose of lacosamide in the ICU

Safety and Tolerability of Lacosamide in Patients With Epilepsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: As a third-generation antiseizure medication (ASM), lacosamide (LCM) is recommended worldwide for patients with epilepsy. We aimed to provide more conclusive evidence for the safety and tolerability of LCM in patients with epilepsy. Methods: A systematic search was performed on MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, IDB, VIP Database, and Wanfang Database from inception to 2021 March, and all studies assessing the safety of LCM were included. A meta-analysis was performed for safety data of LCM. Results: Eighty-three studies involving 12268 populations (11 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 16 cohort studies, 53 case series, and 3 case reports) were included in our study. Meta-analysis of the total incidence of adverse events (AEs) of LCM was 38.7% [95% CI (35.1%, 45.8%); n=75 studies]. Incidence of withdrawal due to AEs was 10.8% [95% CI (9.1%, 12.6%); n=56 studies], and incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) was 6.5% [95% CI (4.0%, 8.9%); n=13 studies]. Most AEs were in the nervous system and digestive system. The most common AEs were sedation (15.8%), dizziness (15.7%), fatigue (9.4%), and nausea/vomiting (9.3%). For children, the total incidence of AEs of LCM was 32.8% [95% CI (21.6%, 44.0%); n=16 studies], and the most common AEs were dizziness (8.6%), nausea/vomiting (8.6%), and somnolence (6.8%). Conclusion: Lacosamide is generally safe and well tolerated in patients with epilepsy. Common AEs were sedation, dizziness, and fatigue. It is necessary to pay more attention to the prevention and management of these AEs and conduct more large-scale and high-quality studies to update safety data.

Efficacy of lacosamide and phenytoin in status epilepticus: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To compare the evidence on efficacy, safety, tolerability, and impact on short term/long functional outcome of lacosamide (LCM) and phenytoin (PHT) in patients with status epilepticus.

MATERIALS & METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search of relevant electronic databases using a suitable search strategy to identify studies directly comparing PHT and LCM, irrespective of dose and duration in patients with convulsive and/or nonconvulsive status epilepticus (SE). We used a standardized assessment form to extract information on the study design, data sources, methodologic framework, efficacy, and adverse events attributed to PHT and LCM from included studies and compared the efficacy and safety outcomes, using a fixed/random effect model.

RESULTS

Five studies were found to be eligible for inclusion out of 192 search items, enrolling a total of 115 and 166 participants (predominantly with SE) in LCM and PHT arm, respectively. Baseline characteristics were comparable between both arms. The proportion with seizure control was comparable between both arms (57.3% in LCM vs. 45.7% in PHT arm, p = 0.28) and even in the subgroup analysis separately for convulsive and non-convulsive SE. Proportion with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) were comparable in both (17.6% vs. 12.2%, p = 0.20), but serious adverse events (SAE) were higher in PHT arm (5.1% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.049). The proportion with all-cause mortality and survival with moderate-severe disability were comparable between both arms (p = 0.23 and 0.37, respectively).

CONCLUSION

LCM has comparable efficacy with fewer SAEs as compared to PHT for achieving seizure control in patients with SE.