Value contribution of cenobamate for the treatment of Focal-Onset Seizures (FOS) in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) in Spain through reflective Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA).

INTRODUCTION: Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological conditions worldwide. The main goal of its treatment is to achieve seizure freedom without intolerable adverse effects. However, despite the availability of many anti-seizure medications, including the latest options, called third-generation anti-seizure medications (ASMs), approximately 40% of people with epilepsy present drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). Cenobamate is the first ASM approved in Spain for the adjunctive treatment of Focal-Onset Seizures (FOS) in adult patients with DRE. In a chronic disease with a portfolio of available ASMs, the decision to introduce a new therapeutic alternative must follow a holistic evaluation of value provided. Reflective Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methodology allows to determine the value contribution of a treatment in a given indication considering all relevant criteria for healthcare decision-making in a transparent and systematic manner from the perspective of relevant stakeholders. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the relative value contribution of cenobamate in the treatment of FOS in patients with DRE compared with third-generation ASMs using reflective MCDA-based methodology. METHODS: A systematic literature review (combining biomedical databases and grey literature sources) was performed to populate the Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking (EVIDEM) MCDA framework adapted to determine what represents value in the management of FOS in patients with DRE in Spain. The study was conducted in two phases. The first took place in 2021 with a multi-stakeholder group of eight participants. The second phase was conducted in 2022 with a multi-stakeholder group of 32 participants. Participants were trained in MCDA methodology and scored four evidence matrices (cenobamate vs. brivaracetam, vs. perampanel, vs. lacosamide and vs. eslicarbazepine acetate). Results were analyzed and discussed in a group meeting through reflective MCDA discussion methodology. RESULTS: DRE is considered a very severe condition associated with many important unmet needs, mainly with regard to the lack of more effective treatments to achieve the ultimate goal of treatment. Compared to third-generation ASMs, cenobamate is perceived to have a better efficacy profile based on improvements in responder rate and seizure freedom. Regarding safety, it is considered to have a similar profile to alternatives and a positive quality-of-life profile. Cenobamate results in lower direct medical costs (excluding pharmacological) and indirect costs. Overall, cenobamate is regarded as providing a high therapeutic impact and supported by high-quality evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Based on reflective MCDA methodology and stakeholders' experience in clinical management of epilepsy in Spain, cenobamate is perceived as a value-added option for the treatment of patients with DRE when compared with third-generation ASMs.

Effectiveness and safety of perampanel as early add-on treatment in patients with epilepsy and focal seizures in the routine clinical practice: Spain prospective study (PERADON).

OBJECTIVE: Perampanel (PER) has been shown to be effective as an adjunctive therapy for controlling refractory focal-onset seizures (FOS). However, the information as early add-on for the treatment of FOS in the clinical practice is still scarce and must be further assessed. METHODS: An observational prospective study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of early add-on PER, assessed as 50% responders (seizure frequency reduced by at least 50% during the last 3 months as compared with baseline) rate at 6 and 12 months, in patients with FOS in the routine clinical practice of Spain. RESULTS: One hundred and thirteen patients (mean age: 40.3 years, 51.3% male) with FOS received PER as early add-on (1st add-on: 37.2% and 2nd: 62.8%) for a mean exposure of 11 months (mean PER dose: 6.3 mg/day at month 12). At 6 months, 50.4% and 20.4% of the patients were responders and seizure-free (respectively) relative to baseline (3 months prior to PER initiation), and at 12 months, 68.1% and 26.5% of the patients were responders and seizure-free (respectively), relative to baseline (3 months prior to PER initiation). The retention rate at 6 and 12 months was 83.2% and 80.5%, respectively. The percentage of seizure-free patients at 12 months was significantly (p = 0.033) higher when PER was added as first vs. second add-on. The number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) was significantly reduced from baseline to 6 and 12 months (p = 0.001). Treatment was simplified in 23.9% of patients at the end of the observation period. Drug-related adverse events (AEs), most mild or moderate, were reported in 30.1% of patients, with irritability (8%) and dizziness (7.1%) as the most frequent ones. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first observational, prospective study to evaluate efficacy and safety of early adjunctive treatment with PER in patients with focal epilepsy at 12 months. Perampanel demonstrated a good efficacy and safety profile when used at a median dose of 6 mg/day, regardless of the combination with other AEDs. Adverse events were mild or moderate, with dizziness being the most frequent one.

NEOPLASM study: Real-life use of lacosamide in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: The choice of antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE) is complicated, and there are a lack of robust clinical trial data to date. METHODS: The NEOPLASM (Neuroncologic Patients treated with LAcoSaMide) study was a 6-month, multicenter, retrospective, observational study in patients with BTRE treated with lacosamide. Patients were started on lacosamide because of a lack of efficacy or adverse events (AEs) with prior AEDs or suitability versus other AEDs, according to clinical practice. The primary efficacy variable was the seizure-free rate at 6months. Safety variables included the proportion of patients with an AE and the proportion with an AE that led to discontinuation. RESULTS: Overall, 105 patients from 14 hospital centers were included in the analysis. Treatment with lacosamide for 6months resulted in a 30.8% seizure-free rate, and 66.3% of patients had a ≥50% seizure reduction (responders). In the subset of patients included because of a lack of efficacy with prior AEDs, seizure-free rates were 28.0%, and 66.7% of patients were responders. No statistically significant differences in efficacy were observed according to the mechanism of action or enzyme-inducing properties of concomitant AEDs. Adverse events were reported by 41.9% of patients at 6months, and 4.7% of them led to discontinuation. The most common AEs were somnolence/fatigue and dizziness. Notably, 57.1% of the patients who were switched to lacosamide because of AEs with their previous therapy did not report any AE at 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this open-label, observational study, lacosamide appeared to be effective and well tolerated in a large population of patients with BTRE. Lacosamide may therefore be a promising option for the treatment of patients with BTRE.

Treatment simplification to optimize cenobamate effectiveness and tolerability: A real-world retrospective study in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the impact of co-antiseizure medication (co-ASM) optimization on the effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive cenobamate (CNB) in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy in a real-world setting. METHODS: This unicentric, retrospective, observational study included adults with focal-onset seizures who had received ≥2 previous ASMs. The main effectiveness endpoints included responder rates and seizure frequency reduction at 3, 6, and 12-month visits. The number of co-ASMs and defined daily dose (DDD) were analyzed at every visit. Safety endpoints included adverse drug reactions (ADRs). RESULTS: Thirty-four patients with a median epilepsy duration of 22 years and a median of 15.5 seizures/month were analyzed. The median number of prior ASMs was 12, and the mean number of co-ASMs was 2.9 (SD 1). There was a reduction in seizure frequency/month from baseline to the last visit (p < 0.0001). Between baseline and the end of the study, the mean number of co-ASMs in the per-protocol (PP) population was reduced from 2.9 to 1.6 (p < 0.0001), and DDD was reduced from 3.6 to 1.4 (p < 0.0001). Sodium channel blockers (carbamazepine and lacosamide) and GABAergic drugs (clobazam) were the agents with the most significant reductions in DDD after 12 months. The percentage of patients in the PP population with ≥3 co-ASMs was reduced from 61.8% at baseline to 14.3% at 12 months; 1 patient was receiving CNB as monotherapy at the last visit. At the last visit, 85.7% of the PP population were ≥50% responders, and 33.3% were seizure-free. The percentage of patients with ADRs in the PP population was 71.9% at 3 months and 52.3% at 12 months. SIGNIFICANCE: Following rational polytherapy, optimization of co-ASM management during CNB treatment allowed high seizure freedom rates despite meaningful reductions in co-medication, while also achieving both good tolerability and patient satisfaction scores in a highly drug-resistant population. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Many patients with epilepsy still have seizures, even after being treated with several different epilepsy drugs. In this study of 34 patients from a Spanish clinic, we show that the epilepsy drug cenobamate can reduce the number of seizures in these patients, even after many other epilepsy drugs have failed. We also show that patients treated with cenobamate can reduce the dose or even stop taking certain other epilepsy drugs. This allows them to simplify their treatment and reduce adverse effects while still keeping control of their epilepsy.

Spanish consensus on the management of concomitant antiseizure medications when using cenobamate in adults with drug-resistant focal seizures.

OBJECTIVE: Cenobamate is an antiseizure medication (ASM) associated with high rates of seizure freedom and acceptable tolerability in patients with focal seizures. To achieve the optimal cenobamate dose for maximal potential effectiveness while avoiding or minimizing drug-related adverse events (AEs), the administration of cenobamate with other ASMs must be managed through concomitant ASM load reduction. A panel of Spanish epilepsy experts aimed to provide a Spanish consensus on how to adjust the dose of concomitant ASMs in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) in order to improve the effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive cenobamate. METHODS: A three-stage modified Delphi consensus process was undertaken, including six Spanish epileptologists with extensive experience using cenobamate. Based on current literature and their own expert opinion, the expert panel reached a consensus on when and how to adjust the dosage of concomitant ASMs during cenobamate titration. RESULTS: The expert panel agreed that tailored titration and close follow-up are required to achieve the best efficacy and tolerability when initiating cenobamate in patients receiving concomitant ASMs. When concomitant clobazam, phenytoin, phenobarbital, and sodium channel blockers are taken at high dosages, or when the patient is receiving two or more sodium channel blockers, dosages should be proactively lowered during the cenobamate titration period. Other concomitant ASMs should be reduced only if the patient reports a moderate/severe AE at any stage of the titration period. SIGNIFICANCE: Cenobamate is an effective ASM with a dose-dependent effect. To maximize effectiveness while maintaining the best tolerability profile, co-medication management is needed. The recommendations included herein provide practical guidance for proactive and reactive management of co-medication in cenobamate-treated patients with DRE and a high drug load. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Patients with epilepsy may continue to have seizures even after treatment with several different antiseizure medications (ASMs). Cenobamate is an ASM that can reduce seizures in these patients. In this study, six Spanish experts in epilepsy discussed the best way to use cenobamate in drug-resistant epilepsy. They provide practical guidance on when and how the dose of other ASMs might be adjusted to reduce side effects and optimize the use of cenobamate.

Perampanel outcomes at different stages of treatment in people with focal and generalized epilepsy treated in clinical practice: Evidence from the PERMIT study.

Introduction: The PERMIT study is the largest pooled analysis of perampanel (PER) clinical practice data conducted to date. Methods: This post-hoc analysis of PERMIT investigated the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of PER when used as early add-on therapy (after failure of one or two previous antiseizure medications) in comparison with late add-on therapy (after failure of three or more previous antiseizure medications). Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months, and at the last visit (last observation carried forward). Effectiveness was assessed by seizure type (total seizures, focal seizures, generalized tonic-clonic seizures [GTCS]) and assessments included seizure freedom rate and responder rate. Safety and tolerability were assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs. Results: The Full Analysis Set included 1184 and 2861 PWE treated with PER as early and late add-on therapy, respectively. Compared to the late add-on subgroup, the early add-on subgroup was characterized by later mean age at epilepsy onset, shorter mean duration of epilepsy, lower rates of intellectual disability and psychiatric comorbidity, and lower frequency of seizures per month, suggesting a less severe form of epilepsy in this subgroup. After 12 months, retention was significantly higher in the early versus late add-on subgroup (67.7% vs. 62.4%; p = 0.004). At the last visit, responder rates in the early versus late add-on subgroup were significantly higher for total seizures (68.2% vs. 39.3%; p < 0.001), focal seizures (65.0% vs. 36.8%; p < 0.001) and GTCS (83.7% vs. 67.2%; p < 0.001), as were seizure freedom rates (total seizures, 35.9% vs. 11.9% [p < 0.001]; focal seizures, 29.4% vs. 8.7% [p < 0.001]; GTCS, 69.0% vs. 48.1% [p < 0.001]). Incidence of AEs was significantly lower in the early versus late add-on subgroup (42.1% vs. 54.7%; p < 0.001), as was the rate of discontinuation due to AEs over 12 months (15.0% vs. 18.1%; p = 0.031). Discussion: This study demonstrated that PER was effective and generally well tolerated when initiated as early or late add-on therapy, but it was significantly more effective and better tolerated when initiated early. These findings support PER's use as a broad-spectrum, early add-on therapy for use in PWE with focal and generalized seizures.

[Miller-Fisher syndrome: clinical features, associated infections and clinical course in 8 cases]. / Síndrome de Miller-Fisher: hallazgos clínicos, infecciones asociadas y evolución en 8 pacientes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Miller-Fisher syndrome (MFS) is considered the most common variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and is characterized by the clinical triad of ophthalmoplegia, ataxia and areflexia. Respiratory involvement and relapses are unusual. Patients with MFS usually have a good recovery and no residual deficits. We describe the clinical features, associated infections and evolution in eight patients with MFS. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Eight cases of MFS and sixty-one of GBS were studied between 1994 and 2003. All cases showed the clinical triad of MFS without major limb weakness or other signs suggestive of CNS involvement. RESULTS: The proportion of MFS with respect to GBS during the same period was 13.1%. Four had a positive serology for Epstein-Barr virus, Salmonella enteritidis, Chlamydia pneumoniae and Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Our cases showed facial palsy (75%), dysphagia (75%), pupillary abnormalities (37.5%) and ventilation support (37.5%). Antiganglioside antibodies, determined in three cases (4 episodes), were positive [GQ1b (50%) and GD1b (50%)]. In all cases, there was a markedly reduced amplitude of the distal sensory as well as frequent axonal degeneration signs. The oldest three patients relapsed and required ventilation support. CONCLUSIONS: We report for the first time an association between S. enteritidis and C. pneumoniae and MFS. Older patients in our series suffered a faster disease progression with need of ventilation support. We conclude that an older age correlates with poor prognosis and relapses.