Efficacy of Lacosamide and Rufinamide as Adjuncts to Midazolam-Ketamine Treatment Against Cholinergic-Induced Status Epilepticus in Rats.

Benzodiazepine pharmacoresistance develops when treatment of status epilepticus (SE) is delayed. This response may result from gamma-aminobutyric acid A receptors (GABAAR) internalization that follows prolonged SE; this receptor trafficking results in fewer GABAAR in the synapse to restore inhibition. Increase in synaptic N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors (NMDAR) also occurs in rodent models of SE. Lacosamide, a third-generation antiseizure medication (ASM), acts on the slow inactivation of voltage-gated sodium channels. Another ASM, rufinamide, similarly acts on sodium channels by extending the duration of time spent in the inactivation stage. Combination therapy of the benzodiazepine midazolam, NMDAR antagonist ketamine, and ASMs lacosamide (or rufinamide) was investigated for efficacy against soman (GD)-induced SE and neuropathology. Adult male rats implanted with telemetry transmitters for monitoring electroencephalographic (EEG) activity were exposed to a seizure-inducing dose of GD and treated with an admix of atropine sulfate and HI-6 1 minute later and with midazolam monotherapy or combination therapy 40 minutes after EEG seizure onset. Rats were monitored continuously for seizure activity for two weeks, after which brains were processed for assessment of neurodegeneration, neuronal loss, and neuroinflammatory responses. Simultaneous administration of midazolam, ketamine, and lacosamide (or rufinamide) was more protective against GD-induced SE compared with midazolam monotherapy. In general, lacosamide triple therapy had more positive outcomes on measures of epileptogenesis, EEG power integral, and the number of brain regions protected from neuropathology compared with rats treated with rufinamide triple therapy. Overall, both drugs were well tolerated in these combination models. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: We currently report on improved efficacy of antiseizure medications lacosamide and rufinamide, each administered in combination with ketamine (NMDAR antagonist) and midazolam (benzodiazepine), in combatting soman (GD)-induced seizure, epileptogenesis, and brain pathology over that provided by midazolam monotherapy, or dual therapy of midazolam and lacosamide (or rufinamide) in rats. Administration of lacosamide as adjunct to midazolam and ketamine was particularly effective against GD-induced toxicity. However, protection was incomplete, suggesting the need for further study.

Lacosamide and pregnancy: Data from spontaneous and solicited reports.

OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. SIGNIFICANCE: 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.

Comparative analysis of adverse drug reactions associated with new antiseizure medications from the Korea Adverse Event Reporting System database.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare and characterize the safety profiles of new antiseizure medications (ASMs) using a nationwide pharmacovigilance database from a long-term perspective in Korea. METHODS: We reviewed adverse event reports from the Korea Adverse Event Reporting System database between January 2013 and December 2022 for descriptive analysis of six new ASMs (lacosamide, levetiracetam, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, topiramate, and zonisamide). We investigated the frequency and characteristics of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) based on the MedDRA terminology, system organ classes, and modified WHO classification. RESULTS: We identified 5,733 reported cases of ADRs. The commonly reported ADRs associated with total ASMs were rash/urticaria (1,822, 31.8 %), dizziness (409, 7.1 %), somnolence/drowsiness (311, 5.4 %), and hepatotoxic effects (273, 4.8 %). Type B (idiosyncratic) effects (2,932; 51.1 %) were more commonly reported than Type A (related to known drug mechanisms) effects (2,613; 45.6 %). Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders and type B effects were most commonly reported for lamotrigine and oxcarbazepine, whereas nervous system disorders and type A effects were most commonly reported for lacosamide, topiramate, and zonisamide. The pediatric group (<18 years) exhibited skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders and type B effects relatively more frequently than the adult and older adult groups. CONCLUSION: Hypersensitivity skin reactions and type B effects remained significant ADRs in the new ASMs; however, type A effects were more commonly reported in some ASMs. The pediatric group showed a higher rate of type B effects. Overall, new ASMs should also be used with caution.

Long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability, including behavior and executive functioning, during adjunctive lacosamide treatment in pediatric patients with uncontrolled epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability, including behavior and executive functioning, during adjunctive lacosamide (LCM) treatment in pediatric patients (≥1 month to <18 years of age) with focal-onset or generalized seizures enrolled in 2 open-label, long-term follow-up trials. METHODS: Two open-label extension trials (SP848: NCT00938912; EP0034: NCT01964560) were conducted in pediatric patients who had participated in previous trials of adjunctive LCM (SP0847/NCT00938431; SP0966/NCT01969851; EP0060/NCT02710890; SP0967/NCT02477839; SP0969/NCT01921205); SP848 also directly enrolled eligible pediatric patients who had not previously participated in a clinical trial of LCM. Outcomes included retention, efficacy, and safety/tolerability. Patient improvement was assessed with Clinician's and Caregiver's Global Impression of Change scale. Behavior and emotional function was assessed with Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and executive functioning was assessed with Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function® (BRIEF). RESULTS: The pooled dataset from both trials included 905 patients (851 in the focal-onset seizure population and 47 in the generalized seizure population). In the overall population, Kaplan-Meier-estimated 1-year retention was 80 %. From baseline to the end of the treatment period, patients in the focal-onset seizure population had a median percent reduction in focal-onset seizure frequency per 28 days of 60.4 %, 55.4 % of patients were 50 % responders, and 40.8 % of patients were 75 % responders. In patients with ≥12 months of LCM treatment, ≥12 month seizure freedom during the LCM treatment period was achieved by 29.9 % of patients in the focal-onset seizure population (median duration of first ≥12-month seizure-free interval: 641 days) and 24.4 % of patients in the generalized seizure population (median duration of first ≥12-month seizure-free interval: 665 days). Improvement during LCM treatment was reported in >75 % of patients by both physicians and caregivers. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 749 (82.8 %) patients, most commonly pyrexia (18.9 %), upper respiratory tract infection (18.6 %), nasopharyngitis (16.2 %), vomiting (15.7 %), and somnolence (11.8 %). The most common drug-related TEAEs were somnolence (8.5 %), dizziness (7.6 %), and vomiting (5.4 %). Behavioral and emotional function was generally stable in patients 1.5-5 years of age and slightly improved in patients ≥6 years of age, and executive functioning was stable in patients <5 years of age and generally slightly improved in patients 5-18 years of age. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of a large patient pool from 2 open-label trials, long-term adjunctive LCM was efficacious and generally well tolerated in children with epilepsy and focal-onset or generalized seizures. Behavior and executive functioning were generally stable without observable worsening during long-term adjunctive LCM treatment.

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

AIM OF THE STUDY: To evaluate the safety of lacosamide (LCM) monotherapy during pregnancy and breastfeeding. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This case series adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting the relative safety of LCM monotherapy throughout pregnancy and breastfeeding.

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of adjunctive lacosamide in pediatric patients with epilepsy syndromes associated with generalized seizures: Phase 2, open-label exploratory trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of lacosamide (LCM) (up to 12 mg/kg/day or 600 mg/day) as adjunctive therapy in pediatric patients with epilepsy syndromes associated with generalized seizures. METHODS: Phase 2, multicenter, open-label exploratory trial (SP0966; NCT01969851; 2012-001446-18) of oral LCM for epilepsy syndromes associated with generalized seizures in pediatric patients ≥1 month to <18 years of age taking one to three concomitant antiseizure medications. The trial comprised a 6-week prospective baseline period, 6-week flexible titration period, and 12-week maintenance period. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients (mean age: 9.2 years; 56.4% male) took at least one dose of LCM and had at least one post-baseline efficacy-related assessment. The median treatment duration was 127.0 days. There were no clinically significant mean or median changes or worsening from baseline to end of the titration period in the count of generalized spike-wave discharges per interpretable hour on 24-h ambulatory electroencephalogram recordings, or from baseline to the maintenance period in mean and median days with any generalized or focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures per 28 days. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 49 patients (89.1%), and three patients (5.5%) discontinued due to TEAEs. The median change and median percentage change in days with any generalized or focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures per 28 days from baseline to the maintenance period were both 0. Trends toward improvement (decrease) were observed in median change and median percentage change in days with each individual seizure type (absence, myoclonic, clonic, tonic, tonic-clonic, atonic, and focal to bilateral tonic-clonic) per 28 days. SIGNIFICANCE: Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profile of LCM and were as expected for the pediatric population. There was no worsening of generalized seizures with LCM. Limitations include the inability to correlate spike and wave data with clinical outcomes, and the lack of similar studies against which the results can be compared.

Investigation of the efficacy and adverse effects of lacosamide over 36 months.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and retention rate of lacosamide (LCM) over 36 months as a treatment for children and adolescents with focal and generalized epilepsy based on a retrospective study. METHODS: All patients prescribed LCM as monotherapy and add-on therapy between October 2016 and September 2019 at Jichi Children's Medical Center Tochigi were included in the study. The response rate, retention rate, and adverse effects were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 126 (female, n = 73) patients of 1.3 to 34.9 years old (median age: 12.8 years; mean ± SD 13.2 ± 6.6 years) received LCM as monotherapy or add-on treatment for focal, generalized, and combined focal and generalized epilepsy. The response rate was 40.5% at 3 months, 40.5% at 6 months, 38.1% at 9 months, 35.7% at 12 months, 25.9% at 24 months, and 29.4% at 36 months. For 34 patients who were observable for 36 months, the retention rate was 70.6% at 3 months, but then gradually declined to 34.8% at 36 months. According to the number of concomitant anti-seizure medications (ASMs), the retention rate was higher in patients receiving <3 ASMs than in those receiving ≥3 ASMs at all observation points. The most common adverse effects were somnolence in 21 patients (16.7%) and dizziness in 5 patients (39.7%). CONCLUSION: Our response rate was lower and our retention rate was higher in comparison to a previous study that observed patients over 36 months. Further prospective studies in children are required to confirm the response rate and retention rate in patients treated with LCM over 36 months.

The effectiveness of antiepileptic drug treatment in glioma patients: lamotrigine versus lacosamide.

PURPOSE: Optimal treatment with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is an important part of care for brain tumor patients with epileptic seizures. Lamotrigine and lacosamide are both examples of frequently used non-enzyme inducing AEDs with limited to no drug-drug interactions, reducing the risk of unfavorable side effects. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of lamotrigine versus lacosamide. METHODS: In this multicenter study we retrospectively analyzed data of patients with diffuse grade 2-4 glioma with epileptic seizures. All patients received either lamotrigine or lacosamide during the course of their disease after treatment failure of first-line monotherapy with levetiracetam or valproic acid. Primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of treatment failure, from initiation of lamotrigine or lacosamide, with death as competing event, for which a competing risk model was used. Secondary outcomes were uncontrolled seizures after AED initiation and level of toxicity. RESULTS: We included a total of 139 patients of whom 61 (44%) used lamotrigine and 78 (56%) used lacosamide. At 12 months, there was no statistically significant difference in the cumulative incidence of treatment failure for any reason between lamotrigine and lacosamide: 38% (95%CI 26-51%) versus 30% (95%CI 20-41%), respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio for treatment failure of lacosamide compared to lamotrigine was 0.84 (95%CI 0.46-1.56). The cumulative incidences of treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures (18% versus 11%) and due to adverse events (17% versus 19%) did not differ significantly between lamotrigine and lacosamide. CONCLUSION: Lamotrigine and lacosamide show similar effectiveness in diffuse glioma patients with epilepsy.

Lacosamide-induced sinus node dysfunction followed by severe agranulocytosis.

BACKGROUND: Lacosamide (LCM) is the antiepileptic drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2008 that facilitates slow activation of the voltage-gated sodium channels. Neutropenia and cardiac events including sinus node dysfunction (SND) and atrioventricular block have been previously reported as adverse effects of LCM. To date, there have been no reports of severe agranulocytosis resulting in death associated with LCM. Additionally, there have been no reports of concomitant SND and agranulocytosis after LCM administration. Herein we report the first case of LCM-induced severe SND followed by agranulocytosis. CASE PRESENTATION: The patient with focal epilepsy was initiated on LCM 100 mg/day and the dose was increased to 200 mg/day on the 9th hospital day. Severe SND developed on the 10th hospital day and LCM was discontinued. Thereafter agranulocytosis appeared on the 11th hospital day, and the patient died from septic shock on the 15th hospital day. CONCLUSIONS: This case illustrates the need for careful follow-up of the electrocardiogram and the complete blood cell counts when initiating LCM. Moreover, it should be noticed that various side effects may occur simultaneously in the early period of LCM use, even for a short time and at low dosages.

Safety of Intravenous Push Lacosamide Compared With Intravenous Piggyback at a Tertiary Academic Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding the incidence of adverse events associated with administering lacosamide by intravenous push (IVP) compared with IV piggyback (IVPB). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this analysis was to compare the safety profile, including cardiovascular effects, sedative effects, and IV site reactions of IVP and IVPB lacosamide administration. METHODS: A retrospective pre/post cohort analysis comparing patients who received lacosamide via IVP and IVPB was conducted. Safety end points included hypotension, bradycardia, medication-related sedation, and IV site reactions. The relationship between patient characteristics and the incidence of safety end points was analyzed using the Student t-test and χ2 test as appropriate. RESULTS: Bradycardia occurred after 0.19% of IVP administrations and 1.09% of IVPB administrations assessed (P = 0.07). Hypotension was observed in 3.16% of IVP administrations compared to 1.59% in the IVPB cohort (P = 0.12). Post lacosamide-related sedation was noted in 11.32% and 11.68% of the IVP and IVPB cohorts, respectively (P = 0.87). Infusion site reaction rates of 1.80% and 0.84% were documented in the IVP and IVPB cohorts, respectively (P = 0.33). Of note, only 1 adverse event required clinical intervention. One 200-mg dose in the IVP cohort required a fluid bolus postadministration. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: IVP lacosamide was associated with a similar incidence of cardiovascular, neurological, and infusion site-related adverse events compared with IVPB, in which nearly every adverse event was deemed clinically insignificant. Lacosamide administered via IVP may be considered a safe alternative method of administration in the acute care setting.

Lacosamide add-on therapy for focal epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane review published in 2015. Around half of people with epilepsy will not achieve seizure freedom on their first antiepileptic drug; many will require add-on therapy. Around a third of people fail to achieve complete seizure freedom despite multiple antiepileptic drugs. Lacosamide has been licenced as an add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide as an add-on therapy for children and adults with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (22 August 2019): the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), including the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 20 August 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), with no language restrictions. We contacted UCB Pharma (sponsors of lacosamide). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of add-on lacosamide in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology, assessing the following outcomes: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; seizure freedom; treatment withdrawal; adverse events; quality of life; and cognitive changes. The primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We estimated summary risk ratios (RR) for each outcome presented with 99% confidence intervals (CI), except for 50% or greater seizure reduction, seizure freedom and treatment withdrawal which were presented with 95% CIs. We performed subgroup analyses according to lacosamide dose and sensitivity analyses according to population age, whereby data from children were excluded from the meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials (2199 participants). The risk of bias for all studies was low to unclear. All studies were placebo-controlled and assessed doses from 200 mg to 600 mg per day. One study evaluated lacosamide in children; all other studies were in adults. Trial duration ranged from 24 to 26 weeks. All studies used adequate methods of randomisation and were double-blind. Overall, the certainty of the evidence for the outcomes was judged as moderate to high, with the exception of seizure freedom which was low. The RR for a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 1.79 (95% CI 1.55 to 2.08; 5 studies; 2199 participants; high-certainty evidence). The RR for seizure freedom for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 2.27 (95% CI 1.35 to 3.83; 5 studies; 2199 participants; low-certainty evidence). The RR for treatment withdrawal for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 1.57 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.98; 5 studies; 2199 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The estimated effect size for most outcomes did not change considerably following sensitivity analysis. For seizure freedom, however, the RR nearly doubled upon the exclusion of data from children (RR 4.04, 95% CI 1.52 to 10.73). Adverse events associated with lacosamide included: abnormal co-ordination (RR 6.12, 99% CI 1.35 to 27.77), blurred vision (RR 4.65, 99% CI 1.24 to 17.37), diplopia (RR 5.59, 99% CI 2.27 to 13.79), dizziness (RR 2.96, 99% CI 2.09 to 4.20), nausea (RR 2.35, 99% CI 1.37 to 4.02), somnolence (RR 2.04, 99% CI 1.22 to 3.41), vomiting (RR 2.94, 99% CI 1.54 to 5.64), and number of participants experiencing one or more adverse events (RR 1.12, 99% CI 1.01 to 1.24). Adverse events that were not significant were: vertigo (RR 3.71, 99% CI 0.86 to 15.95), rash (RR 0.58, 99% CI 0.17 to 1.89), nasopharyngitis (RR 1.41, 99% CI 0.87 to 2.28), headache (RR 1.34, 99% CI 0.90 to 1.98), fatigue (RR 2.11, 99% CI 0.92 to 4.85), nystagmus (RR 1.47, 99% CI 0.61 to 3.52), and upper respiratory tract infection (RR 0.70, 99% CI 0.43 to 1.15). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Lacosamide is effective and well-tolerated in the short term when used as add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Lacosamide increases the number of people with 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency and may increase seizure freedom, compared to placebo. Higher doses of lacosamide may be associated with higher rates of adverse events and treatment withdrawal. Additional evidence is required assessing the use of lacosamide in children and on longer-term efficacy and tolerability.

Interactions among Lacosamide and Second-Generation Antiepileptic Drugs in the Tonic-Clonic Seizure Model in Mice.

Combination therapy with two or three antiseizure medications (ASMs) is sometimes a preferred method of treatment in epilepsy patients. (1) Background: To detect the most beneficial combination among three ASMs, a screen test evaluating in vivo interactions with respect to their anticonvulsant properties, was conducted on albino Swiss mice; (2) Methods: Classification of interactions among lacosamide (LCM) and selected second-generation ASMs (lamotrigine (LTG), pregabalin (PGB), oxcarbazepine (OXC), and topiramate (TPM)) was based on the isobolographic analysis in the mouse maximal electroshock-induced seizure (MES) model. Interactions among LCM and second-generation ASMs were visualized using a polygonogram; (3) Results: In the mouse MES model, synergy was observed for the combinations of LCM + TPM + PGB and LCM + OXC + PGB. Additivity was reported for the other combinations tested i.e., LCM + LTG + TPM, LCM + LTG + PGB, LCM + LTG + OXC, and LCM + OXC + TPM in this seizure model. No adverse effects associated with triple ASM combinations, containing LCM and second-generation ASMs were observed in mice; (4) Conclusions: The combination of LCM + TPM + PGB was the most beneficial combination among the tested in this study, offering synergistic suppression of tonic-clonic seizures in mice subjected to the MES model. Both the isobolographic analysis and polygonogram method can be recommended for experimental epileptology when classifying interactions among the ASMs.

DRESS is a Mess: A Case of Cross Reactivity Between Lacosamide and Lamotrigine.

Drug reaction with eosinophilia with systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome is a rare drug reaction often presenting with both cutaneous manifestations and potentially life-threatening internal organ involvement. The precise incidence of DRESS is still unclear as it is easily missed due to its highly variable clinical presentation. However, with an expected mortality rate of approximately 10 percent, it is important for clinicians to be familiar with pharmacologic etiologies commonly implicated in the pathogenesis. We present a case of DRESS syndrome attributed to cross-reactivity between two commonly used anticonvulsants- lacosamide and lamotrigine.

Effects of lacosamide and carbamazepine on lipids in a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: The effects of anticonvulsants on lipids are the subject of considerable concern and investigation, but there are almost no data on this issue from randomized trials. We evaluated serum lipid profiles in adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy, following randomization to lacosamide (LCM) or carbamazepine (CBZ) monotherapy. METHODS: We analyzed data from a Phase 3, international, randomized, double-blind trial of LCM vs CBZ for the initial treatment of focal epilepsy. Serum lipid profiles in patients not taking lipid-lowering agents and providing blood samples under fasting conditions before treatment, and following 3 or 12 months of treatment with LCM or CBZ at various doses were analyzed. RESULTS: At 12 months, 271 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria for the analysis. No change was observed in LCM-treated patients for total cholesterol, cholesterol fractions, or triglycerides. CBZ-treated patients showed an increase of 21.1 mg/dL in total cholesterol, 12.6 mg/dL in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, 12.5 mg/dL in non-high density lipoprotein (non-HDL) cholesterol, and 8.5 mg/dL in HDL cholesterol; triglycerides remained unchanged. The proportion of patients with elevated total cholesterol levels (above the upper limit of the reference range) did not change in the LCM treatment group (37.0% at Baseline; 34.8% at 12 months), but increased from 30.8% (at Baseline) to 49.6% (at 12 months) in the CBZ treatment group. SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides Class II evidence that CBZ elevates serum lipids, whereas LCM has no effect on lipids. It supports LCM as an appropriate choice for new-onset focal epilepsy.

Antiepileptic combination therapy with Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis: Analysis of a Japanese pharmacovigilance database.

OBJECTIVE: Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) are immune-mediated diseases characterized by an extensive loss of the epidermal skin layer, often resulting in death. SJS and TEN are often triggered by certain drugs, including antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Epilepsy is very difficult to treat and often involves the combination of two or more AEDs. In this study, we quantified not only the risk of SJS or TEN associated with single-AED therapy but also the risk related to concomitant AED treatment using reporting-derived signals. METHODS: An analysis of the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report (JADER) database was performed from the first quarter of 2004 to the fourth quarter of 2018. The single-AED signals were evaluated using the proportional reporting ratio (PRR), and the combination therapy signals were evaluated using Ω shrinkage measure and combination risk ratio (CRR). RESULTS: SJS signals were associated with 11 AEDs, and TEN signals were related to 12 AEDs. Moreover, the following AED combinations were associated with SJS signals: carbamazepine-lorazepam (Ω025 : 0.33, CRR: 2.18) and fosphenytoin-lorazepam (Ω025 : 0.99, CRR: 39.20). The TEN signals were related to the following combinations: clobazam-gabapentin (Ω025 : 0.35, CRR: 3.14), phenytoin-gabapentin (Ω025 : 0.03, CRR: 2.18), valproic acid-gabapentin (Ω025 : 0.15, CRR: 2.25), clobazam-clonazepam (Ω025 : 0.03, CRR: 2.93), clobazam-valproic acid (Ω025 : 0.29, CRR: 1.55), fosphenytoin-lamotrigine (Ω025 : 0.05, CRR: 7.37), and lacosamide-levetiracetam (Ω025 : 0.74, CRR: 1.85). SIGNIFICANCE: This study identified two AED combinations that increased the SJS signals and seven combinations that increased the TEN signals. Although AED monotherapies require attention for SJS and TEN, some AED combinations require extra caution.

Therapeutic Monitoring of Lacosamide in Japanese Patients With Epilepsy: Clinical Response, Tolerability, and Optimal Therapeutic Range.

BACKGROUND: Lacosamide is a novel anticonvulsant that acts by enhancing sodium channel slow inactivation. The aims of this study were to evaluate the influence of concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) on serum lacosamide concentration and explore the relationship between lacosamide serum concentration and both clinical response and adverse effects. METHODS: The authors analyzed 649 serum samples from 426 Japanese patients with epilepsy. The concentration-to-dose (CD) ratio of lacosamide was compared among patients on various AED regimens. Clinical information about seizure frequency and adverse events was obtained from clinical records. RESULTS: In patients who did not receive enzyme-inducing AEDs, the CD ratio (mean ± SD) of lacosamide was 1.84 ± 0.68. By contrast, the CD ratio in patients who received phenytoin, carbamazepine, and phenobarbital was 1.42 ± 0.66 (22.8% lower), 1.46 ± 0.40 (20.7% lower), and 1.36 ± 0.38 (26.1% lower), respectively. Seventy-four patients (17.3%) achieved >50% seizure reduction. The median lacosamide concentration in patients who received and did not receive a sodium channel blocker was 6.6 mcg/mL (26.4 µmol/L) and 8.4 mcg/mL (33.6 µmol/L), respectively. Adverse events, including dizziness, somnolence, diplopia, and anorexia, were reported by 70 patients (16.4%). The incidence rate in patients treated with sodium channel blockers was significantly higher than that in patients not treated with these drugs (21.1% vs. 10.3%; P < 0.005), and the median lacosamide concentration in these patient groups was 5.1 (20.4 µmol/L) and 7.5 mcg/mL (30 µmol/L), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic drug monitoring of lacosamide is clinically useful because it allows physicians to estimate the extent of drug interactions and adjust the dose in individual AED regimens.

Clinical experience combined with therapeutic drug monitoring of lacosamide.

OBJECTIVE: Lacosamide (LCM) is an antiepileptic drug (AED) with insufficient clinical experience in patients with intellectual disability (ID). They often have more severe epilepsy with comorbidities. The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide (LCM) in patients with refractory epilepsy with and without ID in a real-life setting, taking drug monitoring (TDM) data into account therapeutic. METHODS: Retrospectively, we identified 344 patients using LCM from the TDM service covering the majority of the country, at the National Center for Epilepsy in Norway (2013-2018). Clinical and TDM data were available for 132 patients. RESULTS: Forty-four of the 132 patients (33%) had ID. The retention rate was significantly higher in the ID vs the non-ID group after 1 year (84% vs 68%, P < .05). By combining clinical and TDM data, we demonstrated that 37/38 responding patients had serum concentrations above the lower limit of the reference range (>10 µmol/L), and 16/17 with lower concentrations were non-responders. Mean serum concentration/dose ratios were similar in both groups, 0.06 and 0.07 µmol/L/mg. There were no significant differences regarding efficacy and tolerability. The risk of LCM withdrawal was significantly higher when LCM was added to sodium channel blockers, even if the latter was discontinued. SIGNIFICANCE: Lacosamide was generally well tolerated in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, where one third had ID, and in these patients the retention rate was higher. The combination of clinical and TDM data could possibly facilitate LCM therapy in these vulnerable patients.

Lacosamide-induced recurrent ventricular fibrillation: A case report.

Lacosamide, a new antiepileptic drug, acts at central nervous system level but may also affect the heart, increasing the risk of cardiac arrhythmias. Only few cases of lacosamide-induced cardiac dysrhythmia have been published. We report a case of several episodes of a life-threatening ventricular fibrillation requiring cardioversion following the first doses of lacosamide as adjunctive epilepsy treatment.

Long-term safety and efficacy of lacosamide and controlled-release carbamazepine monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: A large-scale, double-blind trial (SP0993; NCT01243177) demonstrated that lacosamide was noninferior to controlled-release carbamazepine (carbamazepine-CR) in terms of efficacy, and well tolerated as first-line monotherapy in patients (≥16 years of age) with newly diagnosed epilepsy. We report primary safety outcomes from the double-blind extension of the noninferiority trial (SP0994; NCT01465997) and post hoc analyses of pooled long-term safety and efficacy data from both trials. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to lacosamide or carbamazepine-CR. Doses were escalated (lacosamide: 200/400/600 mg/d; carbamazepine-CR: 400/800/1200 mg/d) based on seizure control. Eligible patients continued randomized treatment in the extension. Primary outcomes of the extension were treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious TEAEs, and discontinuations due to TEAEs. Post hoc analyses of data from combined trials included 12- and 24-month seizure freedom and TEAEs by number of comorbid conditions. RESULTS: A total of 886 patients were treated in the initial trial and 548 in the extension; 211 of 279 patients (75.6%) on lacosamide and 180/269 (66.9%) on carbamazepine-CR completed the extension. In the extension, 181 patients (64.9%) on lacosamide and 182 (67.7%) on carbamazepine-CR reported TEAEs; in both groups, nasopharyngitis, headache, and dizziness were most common. Serious TEAEs were reported by 32 patients (11.5%) on lacosamide and 22 (8.2%) on carbamazepine-CR; 12 (4.3%) and 21 (7.8%) discontinued due to TEAEs. In the combined trials (median exposure: lacosamide 630 days; carbamazepine-CR 589 days), Kaplan-Meier estimated proportions of patients with 12- and 24-month seizure freedom from first dose were 50.8% (95% confidence interval 46.2%-55.4%) and 47.0% (42.2%-51.7%) on lacosamide, and 54.9% (50.3%-59.6%) and 50.9% (46.0%-55.7%) on carbamazepine-CR. Incidences of drug-related TEAEs and discontinuations due to TEAEs increased by number of comorbid conditions and were lower in patients on lacosamide. SIGNIFICANCE: Long-term (median ~2 years) lacosamide monotherapy was efficacious and generally well tolerated in adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Seizure freedom rates were similar with lacosamide and carbamazepine-CR.