Lacosamide Monotherapy Research Articles

Outcomes following exposure to lacosamide monotherapy during pregnancy and breastfeeding - a prospective case series.

To evaluate the safety of lacosamide (LCM) monotherapy during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Patients taking LCM monotherapy treated at the university epilepsy clinic were prospectively followed up during pregnancy, delivery, and breastfeeding. Data on seizure frequency, LCM dosage, pregnancy course, delivery and breastfeeding, birth outcome, congenital malformation, and development of newborns was collected. Four pregnancies in three patients with refractory focal epilepsy treated with LCM monotherapy were reported. One of these pregnancies ended in a miscarriage during the seventh week of gestation. The average daily LCM dose at the time of conception was 300 mg. Treatment with LCM was continued throughout pregnancy and breastfeeding. The dose of LCM was increased in two pregnancies: in one case following a seizure relapse, and in the other case as a preventive measure to avoid an increase in seizure frequency. Seizure frequency remained stable during pregnancy in two cases. All deliveries were carried out via caesarean section, with an average gestational age at birth of 37.6 weeks. The Apgar score was 10 in all newborns, and no congenital malformations were detected. At the age of 12 months, normal developmental milestones were reached. Infants were breastfed without any complications. This case series adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting the relative safety of LCM monotherapy throughout pregnancy and breastfeeding.

Lacosamide and pregnancy: Data from spontaneous and solicited reports.

In pregnancy, it is important to balance the risks of uncontrolled epileptic seizures to the mother and fetus against the potential teratogenic effects of antiseizure medications. Data are limited on pregnancy outcomes among patients taking lacosamide (LCM), particularly when taken as monotherapy. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the pregnancy outcomes of LCM-exposed pregnancies. This analysis included all reports in the UCB Pharma pharmacovigilance database of exposure to LCM during pregnancy from spontaneous sources (routine clinical settings) or solicited reports from interventional clinical studies and noninterventional postmarketing studies. Prospective and retrospective reports were analyzed separately. At the data cutoff (August 31, 2021), there were 202 prospective pregnancy cases with maternal exposure to LCM and known outcomes. Among these cases, 44 (21.8%) patients received LCM monotherapy and 158 (78.2%) received LCM polytherapy. Most patients received LCM during the first trimester (LCM monotherapy: 39 [88.6%]; LCM polytherapy: 143 [90.5%]). From the prospective pregnancy cases with maternal LCM exposure, there were 204 reported outcomes (two twin pregnancies occurred in the polytherapy group). The proportion of live births was 84.1% (37/44) in patients who received LCM as monotherapy, and 76.3% (122/160) for LCM polytherapy. The overall proportion of abortions (for any reason) was 15.9% (7/44) with LCM monotherapy, and 22.5% (36/160) with LCM polytherapy. Congenital malformations were reported in 2.3% (1/44) of known pregnancy outcomes with maternal exposure to LCM monotherapy, and 6.9% (11/160) with polytherapy. Our preliminary data do not raise major concerns on the use of LCM during pregnancy. Most pregnancies with LCM exposure resulted in healthy live births, and no new safety issues were identified. These findings should be interpreted with caution, as additional data are needed to fully evaluate the safety profile of LCM in pregnancy.

Clinical Analysis of Lacosamide Monotherapy in the Treatment of Self-Limited Epilepsy with Centrotemporal Spikes.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lacosamide (LCM) monotherapy in the treatment of self-limited epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes (SeLECTS). In this study, 89 children with SeLECTS who were treated with LCM monotherapy in the Children's Hospital Affiliated to Soochow University from June 2019 to June 2021 were included. Clinical seizures and spike wave index (SWI) on video EEG during slow-wave sleep were evaluated before and after treatment. The role of LCM monotherapy in improving SWI, controlling clinical seizures and improving cognition was analyzed, and corresponding adverse reactions were documented. There were 52 males and 37 females in this group, with an average age of 7.6 ± 2.1 years. The total effective rate was 93.83% and at 18 months of treatment, the cumulative control rate was 85.19%, the retention rate was 91.01% and the effective rate in terms of EEG spike index was 72.92%, all of which showed a high rate; there was no statistically significant difference in intelligence quotient before and after treatment (P > 0.05). In addition, it was found in the study that the earlier the age of onset, the less obvious the improvement in SWI after LCM treatment; the lower the baseline seizure frequency, the more significant the improvement in SWI after LCM treatment. LCM monotherapy had curative effect and adverse reactions for SeLECTS, with no negative impact on cognition. These significant findings indicate that LCM is likely to become a widely prescribed ASM for the treatment of SeLECTS. Meanwhile, the onset age and baseline seizure frequency had certain value in judging prognosis and predicting curative effect.

Efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide and controlled-release carbamazepine monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed temporal lobe epilepsy: Post hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind trial

PurposeTemporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) is often associated with drug-resistant seizures. We evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide (LCM) versus controlled-release carbamazepine (CBZ-CR) monotherapy in adults with newly diagnosed TLE. MethodsExploratory post hoc analysis of patients with temporal focus of localization (indicated as the only localization focus) in a double-blind, noninferiority, phase 3 trial (SP0993; NCT01243177) in patients aged ≥ 16 years with newly diagnosed epilepsy randomized 1:1 to LCM or CBZ-CR monotherapy. ResultsOf 886 treated patients in this trial, temporal lobe focus of localization (TLE) was reported as the single focus for 287 (32.4%) patients (LCM 134, CBZ-CR 153). A similar proportion of patients with TLE on LCM (82 [61.2%]) and CBZ-CR (99 [64.7%]) completed the trial. Kaplan-Meier estimates for 6- and 12-month seizure freedom at the last evaluated dose level (stratified by number of seizures in the 3 months before screening [≤2 or >2 seizures]) were similar with LCM and CBZ-CR (6 months overall: 88.7% and 89.7%; 12 months overall: 78.3% and 81.7%). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by fewer patients on LCM (73.9%) than CBZ-CR (81.0%). Drug-related TEAEs (assessed by the investigator) were reported in 41.8% of patients on LCM and 52.3% of patients on CBZ-CR; 11.2% of patients on LCM and 15.0% on CBZ-CR discontinued due to TEAEs. ConclusionLacosamide was efficacious and generally well tolerated as monotherapy in patients with TLE with efficacy outcomes comparable with CBZ-CR, and fewer patients on LCM reported any TEAEs, drug-related TEAEs, or discontinued due to TEAEs.

Perampanel and lacosamide monotherapy in pediatric patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: A prospective study evaluating efficacy, tolerability, and behavior

PurposePerampanel (PER) and lacosamide (LCM) are the new third-generation anti-seizure medications (ASMs) that were approved for the monotherapy of focal epilepsy in children over four years of age in China, in 2021. Very few studies have analyzed the application of PER monotherapy among pediatric patients aged ≥four years, and no study compared the efficacy and tolerability of PER monotherapy with LCM monotherapy in pediatric patients with focal epilepsy. The present study aimed to investigate the efficacy, tolerability, and effect on behavior and emotion of PER and LCM as monotherapy in pediatric patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy, which is beneficial for clinicians to have more choices to treat pediatric patients with focal epilepsy. MethodsThis was a prospective, single-center, observational study that involved pediatric patients (disease onset age ≥four years) with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy treated with PER or LCM as primary monotherapy. Outcomes included retention, being responders, and seizure-free rates after 3, 6, and 12 months. Adverse events (AEs) were noticed throughout the follow-up period. Behavioral outcomes were evaluated with Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL/4–16) at baseline and after three and six months. ResultsUsing randomization, 60 patients receiving PER (31 females, 29 males, median age: 7.79 [5.34, 10.16] years, median dose: 3.0 [2.0, 4.0] mg/day) and 60 patients receiving LCM (25 females, 35 males, median age: 7.72 [5.91, 10.72] years, median dose: 150.0 [100.0, 200.0] mg/day) were enrolled in the study. At the 12-month follow-up, the retention rates in the PER and LCM groups, both were 90.4%, and the responder rates were 65.4% and 71.2%, while seizure-free rates were 57.7% and 67.3%, respectively. There were no significant differences in the retention, responder and seizure-free rates between the two groups (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in the responder rates between patients with BECTS, abnormal brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or types of seizure in the two groups (P > 0.05). In the PER group, 28.8% (15/52) of patients experienced AEs, of which the most frequently reported were irritability (n = 7; 13.5%), dizziness (n = 5; 9.6%), somnolence (n = 3; 5.8%), ataxia (n = 1; 1.9%), headache (n = 1; 1.9%), and rash (n = 1; 1.9%). In the LCM group, 15.4% (8/52) of the patients had AEs, including headache (n = 4; 7.5%), dizziness (n = 4; 7.5%), nausea (n = 2; 3.8%), somnolence (n = 2; 3.8%), irritability (n = 1; 1.9%), stomach ache (n = 1; 1.9%), and vomiting (n = 1; 1.9%). The incidence of irritability was significantly higher in the PER group than in the LCM group (13.5% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.031), which occurred mainly within eight weeks after drug administration. Patients with irritability were not dangerous to surrounding people by the assessment of parental observation in the life. And the symptoms were relieved spontaneously within a few months. The outcomes of total scores, internalizing scores, and externalizing scores of the CBCL did not show statistically significant differences in the PER and LCM groups between baseline and three and six months. Characteristics of behavior and emotion did not have substantial changes in patients treated with PER and LCM monotherapy. ConclusionsThe present study documented similar good effectiveness and good tolerance of PER and LCM as monotherapy in pediatric patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy and showed no behavioral or emotional impact, as assessed by the CBCL. Though the incidence of irritability with PER monotherapy may be higher than that with LCM monotherapy soon after medication initiation, this side effect appears to resolve spontaneously within a few months. At present, this study was the first research about PER and LCM monotherapy in pediatric patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy evaluating efficacy, tolerability, and behavior in China.

Efficacy and tolerability of immediate switch from sodium channel blockers to Lacosamide

Lacosamide (LCM) is a new-generation anti-seizure medication approved for monotherapy and add-on therapy for focal-onset epilepsy. It has novel pharmacodynamics and favorable pharmacokinetic qualities with good clinical response. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of LCM when used in the immediate switch from sodium channel blockers in patients with focal-onset and generalized-onset epilepsies. This retrospective, multicenter observational study was conducted with adult patients who received LCM as mono- or polytherapy through immediate switch with 6 to 52 months follow-up. The clinical data obtained during the follow-up period were analyzed to assess retention rate, seizure freedom, more than 50% seizure reduction, and adverse effects. A total of 32 patients (eight females, 24 males) with a median age of 49.75 (range, 23–86) years, median age at epilepsy onset of 32.58 (range, 0.5–85) years, and median epilepsy duration of 17.17 (range, 1–46) years were included in this study. Seizure frequency was between 1 and 90 in the past 6 months. Seven (21.9%) of the patients had structural brain lesions and 27 (84.4%) of the patients had EEG abnormalities. The adverse effects leading to switching were hyponatremia, rash, elevated liver enzymes, pain, and erectile dysfunction. At 14.34 (range, 6–52) months follow-up, 30 (93.75%) patients in total retained LCM, 20 (66.7%) of them were seizure-free, and 13 were on LCM monotherapy. Responder rate was 81.25%. Eight (25%) of the patients experienced adverse effects after the immediate switch. One patient with generalized-onset epilepsy needed to quit LCM due to an increase in seizures. Seizure frequency did not change in three patients in the focal-onset group. Immediate switch to LCM showed favorable outcomes with a significant reduction in seizure frequency, high retention rates, and tolerable adverse effect profiles in both focal-onset and generalized-onset seizures.

Equipotency of lacosamide to levetiracetam in new onset focal epilepsy: A randomized controlled trial.

Levetiracetam (LEV) is a well-established broad spectrum antiseizure medication (ASM) effective in focal, generalized, and myoclonic seizures whereas lacosamide (LCM) is a comparatively newer ASM currently approved only as an add-on agent in focal seizures. The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and the tolerability of oral LCM as monotherapy in adult people with epilepsy (PWE) with new onset focal onset epilepsy compared with those receiving LEV. In this open-label single-center non-inferiority trial, PWE aged between 16 and 65 years suffering from new onset focal seizures, with or without secondary generalization were put on LCM monotherapy or LEV monotherapy. Data regarding demographic characteristics, seizure type and etiology, LCM and LEV daily dose, seizure frequency at baseline and at 6 months of follow-up, and seizure freedom rates were recorded. Thirty-five PWE on LCM (24 males), their mean age: 38.20 ± 16.62 years and 35 PWE on LEV (25 males, mean age: 38.91 ± 17.13 years) were enrolled. The most common type of seizure observed was focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizure >70% followed by focal impaired awareness seizure and focal awareness seizure. Structural epilepsy was found in 21 among LCM group and 22 of LEV group. In the LCM group, the seizure frequency decreased from 3.33 ± 1.88 to 0.85 ± 1.09 (P = 0.001) at 6 months and from 3.61 ± 3.12 to 0.94 ± 1.24 (P = 0.001) in LEV group, intergroup difference (P = 0.74). At 6-month follow-up period, 78.9% in LCM arm and 87.9% in the LEV arm had experienced a 50% of reduction in seizure frequency while seizure freedom was attained in 43.3% of PWE in both the arms (P = 1). The most common treatment emergent adverse effects in the LCM group were fatiguability, dyspepsia, headache, and dizziness, while in the LEV group; somnolence and behavioral abnormality. Treatment with LCM met the non-inferiority criteria when compared with LEV. Therefore, it might be useful as first-line monotherapy for adults with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy.

Frontline Sodium Channel-Blocking Antiseizure Medicine Use Promotes Future Onset of Drug-Resistant Chronic Seizures

The mechanisms of treatment-resistant epilepsy remain unclear. We have previously shown that frontline administration of therapeutic doses of lamotrigine (LTG), which preferentially inhibits the fast-inactivation state of sodium channels, during corneal kindling of mice promotes cross-resistance to several other antiseizure medicines (ASMs). However, whether this phenomenon extends to monotherapy with ASMs that stabilize the slow inactivation state of sodium channels is unknown. Therefore, this study assessed whether lacosamide (LCM) monotherapy during corneal kindling would promote future development of drug-resistant focal seizures in mice. Male CF-1 mice (n = 40/group; 18-25 g) were administered an anticonvulsant dose of LCM (4.5 mg/kg, i.p.), LTG (8.5 mg/kg, i.p.), or vehicle (0.5% methylcellulose) twice daily for two weeks during kindling. A subset of mice (n = 10/group) were euthanized one day after kindling for immunohistochemical assessment of astrogliosis, neurogenesis, and neuropathology. The dose-related antiseizure efficacy of distinct ASMs, including LTG, LCM, carbamazepine, levetiracetam, gabapentin, perampanel, valproic acid, phenobarbital, and topiramate, was then assessed in the remaining kindled mice. Neither LCM nor LTG administration prevented kindling: 29/39 vehicle-exposed mice were kindled; 33/40 LTG-exposed mice were kindled; and 31/40 LCM-exposed mice were kindled. Mice administered LCM or LTG during kindling became resistant to escalating doses of LCM, LTG, and carbamazepine. Perampanel, valproic acid, and phenobarbital were less potent in LTG- and LCM-kindled mice, whereas levetiracetam and gabapentin retained equivalent potency across groups. Notable differences in reactive gliosis and neurogenesis were also appreciated. This study indicates that early, repeated administration of sodium channel-blocking ASMs, regardless of inactivation state preference, promotes pharmacoresistant chronic seizures. Inappropriate ASM monotherapy in newly diagnosed epilepsy may thus be one driver of future drug resistance, with resistance being highly ASM class specific.

Twelve-Month Efficacy of Lacosamide Monotherapy at Maximal Dose and Tolerability for Epilepsy Treatment in Pediatric Patients: Real-World Clinical Experience

BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of lacosamide (LCM) monotherapy in Chinese pediatric patients with epilepsy have not been established. Therefore, this real-world retrospective study aimed to assess the efficacy of 12 months after achievement the maximal dose and tolerability of LCM as monotherapy for epilepsy treatment in pediatric patients. MethodsPediatric patients were administered LCM monotherapy in two ways: primary or conversion monotherapy. Seizure frequency was recorded as an average per month for the preceding three months at baseline and then at each follow-up period for three, six, and 12 months. ResultsPrimary monotherapy with LCM was administered to 37 (33.0%) pediatric patients, whereas conversion to monotherapy was achieved in 75 (67.0%) pediatric patients. The responder rates of pediatric patients receiving primary monotherapy with LCM at three, six, and 12 months were 75.7% (28 of 37), 67.6% (23 of 34), and 58.6% (17 of 29), respectively. The responder rates of pediatric patients receiving conversion to monotherapy with LCM at three, six, and 12 months were 80.0% (60 of 75), 74.3% (55 of 74), and 68.1% (49 of 72), respectively. The incidence of adverse reactions with conversion to LCM monotherapy and primary monotherapy was 32.0% (24 of 75) and 40.5% (15 of 37), respectively. ConclusionLCM is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option as monotherapy for the treatment of epilepsy.

The effect of lacosamide monotherapy on sleep architecture in patients with epilepsy: a preliminary evidence.

Lacosamide (LCM) is a third-generation antiseizure medication (ASM), and its effect on sleep architecture was supported by a few studies in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy in which LCM was used as an add-on treatment. To gather knowledge on ASMs effects on sleep, this study aimed at evaluating the effects of LCM monotherapy on sleep in patients with focal epilepsy. Ten patients diagnosed with epilepsy (mean age 58.00 ± 14.77, 60.0% female, mean monthly seizure frequency 1.20 ± 2.48) starting LCM as monotherapy were included. Sleep architecture was assessed through polysomnography at baseline and at the 6-month follow-up visit. A significant decrease was observed in seizure frequency (p = 0.004), being all patients seizure-free at follow-up. At baseline, eight patients had poor sleep efficiency (< 85%). Sleep efficiency increased at follow-up, with onlythree patients having an index < 85% (p = 0.022). From baseline to follow-up, a significant decrease was observed in sleep latency (p = 0.022) and wakefulness after sleep onset (p = 0.047). Moreover, a significant decrease was observed in the percentage of stage 1 (Md = 6.70 vs Md = 3.85, p = 0.005) and stage 3 (Md = 27.70 vs Md = 22.35, p = 0.01) of Non-REM sleep. This study suggests that LCM monotherapy may positively impact sleep architecture in patients with epilepsy. The sleep efficiency improvement and the decrease of sleep latency and wakefulness after sleep onset observed at follow-up highlight better sleep stability and continuity in patients treated with LCM. Notably, all patients were seizure-free at follow-up, and seizure freedom may also concur to sleep structure improvement.

Lacosamide monotherapy for the treatment of childhood epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes

ObjectiveChildhood epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes (CECTS) is known as age-limited focal epilepsy syndrome in childhood. Lacosamide is a third-generation antiepileptic drug. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of lacosamide monotherapy for the treatment of CECTS. MethodsWe enrolled 18 patients (6 girls and 12 boys) who met the following criteria: 1) the age of onset of the seizures was between 3 and 13 years of age; 2) showing at least hemifacial and/or oropharyngeal seizures; 3) interictal discharges in central and/or middle temporal electrodes; 4) no intellectual disability; 5) treatment duration of lacosamide monotherapy over 6 months. We retrospectively collected and analyzed clinical data and treatment information. We evaluated the seizure occurrences during 0–3, 4–6, and 7–12 months from the treatment initiation and the last 6 months of the follow-up. We also evaluated the outcomes as seizure-free if the patients developed no seizures both over 6 months and 3 times of pretreatment mean seizure interval at the last follow-up. ResultsOf the patients, 39%, 67% and 72% were seizure-free during 0–3, 4–6, and 7–12 months from treatment initiation, respectively. Finally, 83% of the patients achieved seizure freedom. Seizure freedom was achieved in 72% during the first 4 months of treatment. All patients continued lacosamide monotherapy during the study, although four patients showed transient fatigue or somnolence. ConclusionsLacosamide showed good efficacy for controlling seizures with fewer adverse effects, and therefore may be a good candidate as a first-line medication for the treatment of new-onset CECTS.

Long-term safety and tolerability of lacosamide monotherapy in patients with epilepsy: Results from a multicenter, open-label trial.

The primary objective of this trial (SP1042; NCT02582866) was to assess long‐term safety and tolerability of lacosamide monotherapy (200‐600 mg/day) in adults with focal (partial‐onset) seizures or generalized tonic‐clonic seizures (without clear focal origin). This Phase III, long‐term, open‐label, multicenter, follow‐up trial enrolled patients with epilepsy who were taking lacosamide in, and completed, the previous double‐blind trial (SP0994; NCT01465997). Primary safety outcomes were treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs), discontinuations due to TEAEs, and serious TEAEs. One hundred and six patients were enrolled and received lacosamide: 84 (79.2%) completed the trial and 22 (20.8%) discontinued. The median duration of exposure was 854.0 days, with a median modal dose of 200 mg/day. Ninety‐six (90.6%), 64 (60.4%), and 44 (41.5%) patients had ≥12, ≥24, and ≥36 months of lacosamide exposure, respectively. At least one TEAE was reported by 61 (57.5%) patients. The most common (≥4%) TEAEs were headache (10 [9.4%]), nasopharyngitis (eight [7.5%]), and back pain (five [4.7%]). One (0.9%) patient discontinued due to a TEAE (sudden unexpected death in epilepsy; not considered drug‐related), 14 (13.2%) patients reported serious TEAEs, and seven (6.6%) patients reported TEAEs that were considered drug‐related. Overall, long‐term lacosamide monotherapy was generally well tolerated up to 600 mg/day, with no new safety signals identified.

Autonomic functions in focal epilepsy: A comparison between lacosamide and carbamazepine monotherapy

ObjectiveSome antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), like sodium channel blockers are significantly associated with autonomic dysfunction in patients with epilepsy. Unlike other sodium-blockers AEDs, lacosamide (LCM) is a third generation AEDs which enhances the slow inactivation of voltage-gated sodium channels. So far, data about LCM on autonomic nervous system are still unknown. This study was designed to investigate cardiovascular autonomic and sudomotor function in patients affected by focal epilepsy on LCM monotherapy, compared to patients treated with carbamazepine (CBZ) monotherapy and healthy subjects. MethodsPatients on LCM underwent autonomic function tests including head up tilt test (HUTT), Valsalva maneuver, deep breathing, hand grip, and cold face. Heart rate variability (HRV) analysis was performed in rest condition and during HUTT. Sudomotor function was assessed through Sudoscan. All results were compared with patients on carbamazepine (CBZ) monotherapy and with healthy subjects. ResultsFourteen patients on LCM monotherapy, 12 patients on CBZ monotherapy and 16 healthy controls were studied. At cardiovascular function tests, delta systolic blood pressure (∆SBP) at 3 min of HUTT and ∆SBP early phase II-late phase II at Valsalva maneuver were significantly lower in CBZ group compared to LCM patients. Spectral analysis of HRV showed no significant differences among LCM, CBZ and control groups. No difference in sudomotor function was found in all three groups. ConclusionsIn conclusion, our findings suggest that LCM and CBZ on monotherapy do not affect autonomic cardiovascular and sudomotor functions compared to controls. Nevertheless, patients on CBZ showed a lower sympathetic reactivity with respect to LCM.

The efficiency and tolerability of lacosamide therapy in adolescents and adults with new-onset focal epilepsy in terms of the epileptiform activity index

Lacosamide (LCM) is one of the most promising antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for focal epilepsy (FE); however, in Russia there are only a few works devoted to its practical application. Objective : to evaluate the efficiency of LCM therapy in adolescents and adults with new-onset FE. Patients and methods . The investigation enrolled 36 patients aged 16-78 years. All the patients underwent video-ECG monitoring with quantification of the epileptiform activity index (EAI) at baseline and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months of treatment. The treatment efficiency was evaluated using the standard measures: drug-induced remission, a response rate of ≥50%, an insufficient efficiency of ≤50%, higher seizure frequency, and therapy retention rates. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed using the SIDe-effects of AntiEpileptic Drugs (SIDAED) questionnaire. Results and discussion . Just 3 months after starting treatment, the total EAI substantially decreased from 2.92 [0; 6.7] to 1.95 [0; 3.07] (p<0.05). LCM demonstrated a high efficacy and a good tolerance in the therapy of FE: by the end of 12-month follow-up, there was a considerable decrease in EAI by 1.57 times (p<0.05); the LCM monotherapy retention rate of 72.2% was achieved in 26 patients: 20 (55.6%) patients had drug-induced remission; six (16.7%) patients were responders. AEs were recorded in 5 (13.8%) cases. Conclusion . LCM is an effective AED for the initial monotherapy of FE. The use of LCM in FE causes a considerable decrease in EAI by 1.57 times (p<0.05).

Tolerability and efficacy of lacosamide and controlled-release carbamazepine monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy and concomitant psychiatric conditions: Post hoc analysis of a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial

Psychiatric comorbidities are common in patients with epilepsy. A double-blind noninferiority monotherapy trial (SP0993; NCT01243177) enrolled newly diagnosed patients (≥16 years) with focal or generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Patients were randomized 1:1 to lacosamide or carbamazepine controlled-release (carbamazepine-CR). Here, we report data from an exploratory post hoc analysis of patients who reported ongoing psychiatric conditions (Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities System Organ Class). Of 886 treated patients in the trial, 126 (14.2%; 64 on lacosamide; 62 on carbamazepine-CR) reported at least one ongoing psychiatric condition at screening, most commonly depression (38.1%), insomnia (27.8%), and anxiety (26.2%). In this subgroup, 32/64 (50.0%) patients on lacosamide and 22/62 (35.5%) on carbamazepine-CR completed the trial. The most common reasons for discontinuation in patients on lacosamide and carbamazepine-CR were adverse events (10.9%, 24.2%) and lack of efficacy (18.8%, 11.3%). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 52 (81.3%) of patients on lacosamide and 56 (90.3%) of patients on carbamazepine-CR, most commonly (≥10% patients in either treatment group; lacosamide, carbamazepine-CR) dizziness (12.5%, 16.1%), headache (12.5%, 14.5%), nasopharyngitis (12.5%, 9.7%), fatigue (7.8%, 14.5%), nausea (7.8%, 11.3%), somnolence (1.6%, 12.9%), and gamma-glutamyltransferase increase (1.6%, 12.9%). Overall, 15 (23.4%) lacosamide-treated and 10 (16.1%) carbamazepine-CR treated patients reported psychiatric TEAEs, most commonly (≥3 patients in either treatment group; lacosamide, carbamazepine-CR) depression (4.7%, 0) and anxiety (3.1%, 6.5%). There were no reports of psychotic disorder, epileptic psychosis, acute psychosis, or serious psychiatric TEAEs. Stratified Kaplan–Meier estimates for 6- and 12-month seizure freedom at the last evaluated dose were similar with lacosamide and carbamazepine-CR (6 months 81.0%, 75.6%; 12 months 62.5%, 66.6%). A higher proportion of patients on lacosamide than carbamazepine-CR completed 6 (67.2%, 45.2%) and 12 months (50.0%, 37.1%) of treatment at the last evaluated dose without a seizure. This exploratory post hoc analysis indicated that lacosamide monotherapy was efficacious and generally well tolerated in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy and concomitant psychiatric conditions. In this subpopulation, lacosamide showed similar efficacy and numerically better effectiveness than carbamazepine-CR.

Long-term efficacy and safety of lacosamide and levetiracetam monotherapy in elderly patients with focal epilepsy: A retrospective study

ObjectivesEpilepsy management in elderly patients is often complex because of several concomitant comorbidities that may limit the use of some antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Levetiracetam (LEV) is a second-generation AED widely used in elderly patients with epilepsy while lacosamide (LCM), which has been recently approved in European Union (EU) as monotherapy for the treatment of focal onset seizures, is affected by a scarcity of data in such frail population. This study is aimed at assessing the efficacy and the tolerability of LCM as monotherapy in elderly patients affected by focal onset epilepsy compared with those receiving LEV. MethodsA retrospective chart review of patients aged ≥65 years suffering from focal onset seizures, with or without secondary generalization on LCM monotherapy or LEV monotherapy, was performed. Data regarding demographic characteristics, seizure type and etiology, LCM and LEV daily dose, number of lifetime AEDs, seizure frequency at baseline and at 12 months of follow-up, and seizure freedom rates were reported. ResultsIn this observational retrospective study, 22 patients on LCM (10 males, 12 females, mean age: 76.23 ± 7.5) and 24 patients on LEV (10 males, 14 females, mean age: 73.58 ± 6.39) were enrolled. Mean LCM daily dose was 204.51 ± 88.51 mg and mean LEV daily dose was 1281.25 ± 378.15 mg. All patients had comorbidities on chronic treatment. At 12 months of follow-up, mean monthly seizure frequency reduced from 4.23 ± 8.53 to 0.33 ± 0.9 (p < .001) in LCM group and from 2.29 ± 6.11 to 0.2 ± 0.81 (p < .001) in LEV group. Furthermore, 16/22 (72.7%) LCM patients were seizure-free at 12 months of follow-up while seizure freedom was achieved by 17/24 (70.8%) patients in LEV group. Discussion and conclusionEpilepsy management in elderly patients is often challenging. In this retrospective real-life study, the efficacy and the tolerability of LCM as monotherapy was favorable even at low doses in older patients and comparable with LEV with a high rate of long-term seizure freedom. Considering the frequent comorbidities and the risk of drug–drug interactions, LCM monotherapy may be a valuable option in elderly patients with focal onset epilepsy because of its favorable pharmacokinetic profile.

The challenges of assessing effectiveness of lacosamide using electronic medical record databases

PurposeElectronic health record (EHR) databases are a potential source for conducting research to generate real world evidence on patient outcomes. The objective of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of using EHR data to assess seizure outcomes in patients treated with lacosamide (LCM) monotherapy. MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study conducted using the Optum clinical EHR database. The study sample comprised patients ≥17 years of age with epilepsy or seizures and treated with LCM monotherapy between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2013. Structured and unstructured data from prescribed medication and abstracted physician note records were used to identify patients with epilepsy treated with LCM monotherapy and measure seizure frequency outcomes. The index date was the first date of LCM monotherapy, with a 6-month baseline period. Patients were observed for up to 12 months beginning on the index date (follow-up period). The EHR data were not sufficient to compute days supply and explicit duration of LCM and other antiepileptic drug (AED) therapies; therefore, LCM monotherapy was estimated from prescription dates of AEDs. Outcomes were change in seizures per month or change in seizure frequency category from baseline to follow-up. Descriptive statistics were used to describe baseline characteristics and study outcomes. ResultsA total of 10,988 patients with at least one LCM prescription were identified during the study period, 470 of whom met all the selection criteria and were included in the study sample. Although many patients had abstracted physician note records that referred to their seizures, only 3.2% of the patients had seizure frequency information that could be used to quantify the number of seizures per month in both the baseline and follow-up periods; thus, this information could not be used to assess the effectiveness of LCM monotherapy on seizure outcomes. ConclusionLacosamide monotherapy effectiveness was not estimated because the EHR prescription record data did not have sufficient information on days supply. Additionally, most patients' records did not contain adequate information to allow for evaluation of quantitative changes in seizure frequency based on the number of seizures per month. More studies are needed to validate these study findings.

Lacosamide monotherapy in clinical practice: A retrospective chart review.

ObjectiveTo assess effectiveness and tolerability of first‐line and conversion to lacosamide monotherapy for focal seizures.Materials and MethodsRetrospective, non‐interventional chart review of lacosamide monotherapy patients aged ≥16 years in Europe. Outcomes included retention rate at observational point (OP) 3 (12 ± 3 months), seizure freedom rates at OP2 (6 ± 3 months) and OP3 and adverse drug reactions (ADRs).ResultsA total of 439 patients were included (98 first‐line and 341 conversion to monotherapy; 128 aged ≥65 years [25 first‐line and 103 conversion to monotherapy]). First‐line and conversion to monotherapy retention rates were 60.2% (59/98; 95% confidence interval [CI] 49.8%‐70.0%) and 62.5% (213/341; 57.1%‐67.6%), respectively. Kaplan‐Meier estimates of 12‐month retention rates were 81.2% and 91.4% for first‐line and conversion to monotherapy, respectively. First‐line and conversion to monotherapy retention rates in patients aged ≥65 years were 60.0% (38.7%‐78.9%) and 68.9% (59.1%‐77.7%), respectively. At OP2, 66.3% of first‐line and 63.0% of conversion to monotherapy patients were seizure free. At OP3, 60.2% of first‐line and 52.5% of conversion to monotherapy patients were seizure free. In the ≥65 years subgroup, seizure freedom rates at OP2 were 72.0% and 68.0% for first‐line and converted to monotherapy, respectively, and at OP3, 68.0% and 56.3%, respectively. Overall, 52 of 439 (11.8%) patients reported ADRs (16.4% in ≥65 years subgroup), most commonly dizziness (5.0%), headache (2.1%) and somnolence (1.6%).ConclusionsLacosamide was effective and well tolerated as first‐line or conversion to monotherapy in a clinical setting in adult and elderly patients with focal seizures.

Real world experience with lacosamide monotherapy- a single center 1-year follow-up study

PurposeReporting of ‘real-world’ data on efficacy and tolerability of antiepileptic medications helps to inform physicians on how newer medications perform in the clinical setting, outside of the strict regimens of clinical trials. We report our experience of prescribing lacosamide monotherapy to a diverse range of patients at our epilepsy centre. MethodsWe performed a single-centre, retrospective review of all patients who had been prescribed lacosamide monotherapy over the last 8 years. Efficacy is pragmatically reported based on reduction of seizure frequency and lacosamide retention rates. ResultsWe identified 45 patients who were commenced on lacosamide monotherapy. Intent-to-treat analysis demonstrated a 51% (n = 23) 12 month retention rate. Forty percent (n = 18) achieved a greater than 50% reduction in seizure frequency and 35.5% (n = 16) became seizure free. ConclusionsWe report real-world data showing a significant reduction in seizure frequency, a moderate rate of retention and an excellent side effect profile in our cohort of patients prescribed lacosamide monotherapy.

Safety and tolerability of lacosamide monotherapy in the elderly: A subgroup analysis from lacosamide trials in diabetic neuropathic pain.

SummaryObjectiveTo assess the safety profile of lacosamide monotherapy in elderly (≥65 years) subjects with diabetic neuropathic pain (DNP).MethodsOf 1,863 DNP subjects in double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled trials of lacosamide monotherapy (NCT00861445, NCT00235469, NCT00238524, NCT00135109, NCT00350103), 502 were elderly. Safety data from elderly subjects were compared with that of younger subjects (<65 years) within these DNP trials. It should be noted that lacosamide is approved for the treatment of focal (partial‐onset) seizures; it is not approved/recommended for the treatment of DNP.ResultsOverall, cardiovascular diseases were prevalent in the DNP population, as was the use of cardiac, blood pressure, diabetes, and cholesterol‐lowering medications among both young and elderly subjects. The most frequently reported adverse events (AEs) for lacosamide monotherapy (200, 400, and 600 mg/day combined) in elderly versus younger subjects were dizziness (16.2% vs. 13.2%), nausea (10.0% vs. 9.4%), and headache (8.0% vs. 8.7%). Incidences of cardiac disorder AEs were higher in elderly versus younger subjects receiving placebo (6.2% vs. 3.9%), lacosamide 200 (4.8% vs. 3.3%), lacosamide 400 (7.0% vs. 4.1%), and lacosamide 600 mg/day (7.7% vs. 4.0%). Discontinuation rates because of any AE in the elderly versus younger subjects were similar for placebo (8.8% vs. 7.0%) and lacosamide 200 mg/day (9.6% vs. 11.9%) and higher for lacosamide 400 (25.1% vs. 10.8%) and lacosamide 600 mg/day (52.7% vs. 28.3%).SignificanceLacosamide monotherapy was well tolerated in elderly subjects with DNP, with an overall AE profile consistent with that reported in epilepsy trials.