Effectiveness and safety of perampanel monotherapy for focal and generalized tonic-clonic seizures: Experience from a national multicenter registry.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) monotherapy in routine clinical practice for the treatment of focal onset and generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS). METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective, observational study was conducted in patients aged ≥12 years treated with PER as primary monotherapy or converted to PER monotherapy by progressive reduction of background antiepileptic drugs. Outcomes included retention, responder, and seizure-free rate after 3, 6, and 12 months and tolerability throughout the follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 98 patients (mean age = 49.6 ± 21.7 years, 51% female) with focal seizures and/or GTCS were treated with PER monotherapy for a median exposure of 14 months (range = 1-57) with a median dose of 4 mg (range = 2-10). The retention rates at 3, 6, and 12 months and last follow-up were 93.8%, 89.3%, 80.9%, and 71.4%, respectively. The retention rates according to the type of monotherapy (primary vs conversion) did not differ (log-rank P value = .57). Among the 98 patients, 61.2% patients had seizures throughout the baseline period, with a median seizure frequency of 0.6 seizures per month (range = 0.3-26). Responder rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 79.6%, 70.1%, and 52.8%, respectively, and seizure freedom rates at the same points were 62.7%, 56.1%, and 41.5%. Regarding the 33 patients who had GTCS in the baseline period, 87.8% were seizure-free at 3 months, 78.1% at 6 months, and 55.1% at 12 months. Over the entire follow-up, PER monotherapy was generally well tolerated, and only 16% of patients discontinued PER due to adverse events (AEs). Female patients were found to be at a higher risk of psychiatric AEs (female vs male odds ratio = 2.85, 95% confidence interval = 1-8.33, P = .046). SIGNIFICANCE: PER demonstrated good effectiveness and a good safety profile when used as primary therapy or conversion to monotherapy at relatively low doses, in a clinical setting with patients with focal seizures and GTCS.

MONOZEB: Long-term observational study of eslicarbazepine acetate monotherapy.

AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) when used as monotherapy for 1 year or more in routine clinical use in patients with focal seizures in epilepsy clinics in Spain. METHODS: This is a retrospective, observational, noninterventional study. Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years, had focal seizures, and started on ESL ≥1 year before database closure. Primary endpoint was the following: proportion seizure-free for ≥6 months at 1 and 2 years. Secondary endpoints included retention on ESL monotherapy at 1 and 2 years, seizure frequency change, seizure worsening, and side effects. Other analyses included seizure freedom from baseline to 1 and 2 years and outcomes in special populations. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-five patients were included (127 on first-line monotherapy and 308 converting to ESL monotherapy): median daily dose was 800 mg at all time points; 63.2% were seizure-free at 1 year, 65.1% at 2 years, and 50.3% for the entire follow-up. Mean duration of ESL monotherapy was 66.7 months; retention was 88.0% at 1 year and 81.9% at 2 years. Mean reduction in seizure frequency was 75.5% at last visit. Over the entire follow-up, seizure worsening was seen in 22 patients (5.1%), side effects in 28.0%, considered severe in 1.8%, and leading to discontinuation in 5.7%. Dizziness, hyponatremia (sodium <135 mEq/l), and somnolence were the most frequent side effects. Outcomes in special populations (patients aged ≥65 years and those with psychiatric history or learning difficulty) were consistent with the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with focal seizures taking ESL monotherapy had excellent retention, high seizure-free rates, and good tolerability up to 2 years.

Perampanel in routine clinical use in idiopathic generalized epilepsy: The 12-month GENERAL study.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel across different seizure types in routine clinical care of patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE). METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective, 1-year observational study collected data from patient records at 21 specialist epilepsy units in Spain. All patients who were aged ≥12 years, prescribed perampanel before December 2016, and had a confirmed diagnosis of IGE were included. RESULTS: The population comprised 149 patients with IGE (60 with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, 51 generalized tonic-clonic seizures [GTCS] only, 21 juvenile absence epilepsy, 10 childhood absence epilepsy, 6 adulthood absence epilepsy, and one Jeavons syndrome). Mean age was 36 years. The retention rate at 12 months was 83% (124/149), and 4 mg was the most common dose. At 12 months, the seizure-free rate was 59% for all seizures (88/149); 63% for GTCS (72/115), 65% for myoclonic seizures (31/48), and 51% for absence seizures (24/47). Seizure frequency was reduced significantly at 12 months relative to baseline for GTCS (78%), myoclonic (65%), and absence seizures (48%). Increase from baseline seizure frequency was seen in 5.2% of patients with GTCS seizures, 6.3% with myoclonic, and 4.3% with absence seizures. Perampanel was effective regardless of epilepsy syndrome, concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), and prior AEDs, but retention and seizure freedom were significantly higher when used as early add-on (after ≤2 prior AEDs) than late (≥3 prior AEDs). Adverse events were reported in 50% of patients over 12 months, mostly mild or moderate, and irritability (23%), somnolence (15%), and dizziness (14%) were most frequent. SIGNIFICANCE: In routine clinical care of patients with IGE, perampanel improved seizure outcomes for GTCS, myoclonic seizures, and absence seizures, with few discontinuations due to adverse events. This is the first real-world evidence with perampanel across different seizure types in IGE.

Factors influencing response to intravenous lacosamide in emergency situations: LACO-IV study.

Status epilepticus (SE) and acute repetitive seizures (ARSs) frequently result in emergency visits. Wide variations in response are seen with standard antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Oral and intravenous (IV) formulations of lacosamide are approved as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of partial-onset seizures in adults and adolescents. The aim of the retrospective multicenter observational study (LACO-IV) was to analyze data from a large cohort of patients with SE or ARSs of varying severity and etiology, who received IV lacosamide in the emergency setting. Patient clinical data were entered into a database; lacosamide use and efficacy and tolerability variables were analyzed. In SE, IV lacosamide tended to be used mainly in nonconvulsive status epilepticus as second- or third-line treatment. The proportion of patients with no seizures when IV lacosamide was the last drug administered was 76.5% (70.9% SE and 83.7% ARSs). The rate of seizure cessation ≤ 24 h after IV lacosamide administration was 57.1% (49.1% SE and 67.4% ARSs). Of the factors analyzed, a shorter latency from seizure onset to IV lacosamide infusion influenced treatment response significantly. A nonsignificant tendency towards a higher response was seen with lacosamide dose >200mg versus ≤ 200 mg. Analysis of response according to mechanism of action showed no significant differences in response to IV lacosamide in patients receiving prior sodium channel blocker (SCB) or non-SCB AEDs in the overall or SE population; however, in ARSs, a tendency towards a higher response was observed in those receiving non-SCB AEDs. The frequency and nature of adverse events observed were in line with those reported in other studies (somnolence being the most frequent). In the absence of randomized prospective controlled studies of IV lacosamide, our observations suggest that IV lacosamide may be a potential alternative for treatment of SE/ARSs when seizures fail to improve with standard AEDs or when AEDs are contraindicated or not recommended.

Enabling smart workflows over heterogeneous ID-sensing technologies.

Sensing technologies in mobile devices play a key role in reducing the gap between the physical and the digital world. The use of automatic identification capabilities can improve user participation in business processes where physical elements are involved(Smart Workflows). However, identifying all objects in the user surroundings does not automatically translate into meaningful services to the user. This work introduces Parkour,an architecture that allows the development of services that match the goals of each of the participants in a smart workflow. Parkour is based on a pluggable architecture that can be extended to provide support for new tasks and technologies. In order to facilitatethe development of these plug-ins, tools that automate the development process are also provided. Several Parkour-based systems have been developed in order to validate the applicability of the proposal.

Efficacy and tolerability of perampanel as a first add-on therapy with different anti-seizure drugs.

PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of perampanel (PER) when administered as a first add-on therapy to patients with focal epilepsy or idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE) taking one other antiseizure drug (ASD). METHODS: This multicentre, retrospective, one-year observational study collected data from patients (≥12 years) who initiated treatment with PER as first add-on therapy. Patients had to be experiencing inadequate seizure control on ASD monotherapy and tried ≤3 ASD monotherapies before initiating PER. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed, adjusted for the number and type of previous seizures, duration and aetiology of epilepsy. RESULTS: Of the 149 patients included in the study (mean age 41 years; 54.4 % male), 118 (79.2 %) were still receiving PER as first add-on treatment after 12 months. Mean PER dose was 6.2 mg/day. At 12 months, 45.6 % were seizure-free and 84.6 % responders. A significant difference in seizure freedom rate was found between patients with IGE and patients with focal epilepsy, but not in responders. Reduced seizure control was observed when PER was administered with strong enzyme-inducing ASDs; conversely, increased seizure control was seen when the same dose of PER was combined with enzyme-inhibiting ASDs. The most frequent adverse events were dizziness (15.4 %), irritability (14.1 %) and drowsiness (14.1 %); no differences in tolerance were observed among different combinations. CONCLUSION: PER demonstrated a good efficacy and safety profile when used as a first add-on therapy in patients who did not respond to monotherapy. PER dose adjustments may optimize seizure control when combined with strong enzyme-inducing or enzyme-inhibiting ASDs.

Early add-on lacosamide in a real-life setting: results of the REALLY study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many patients with epilepsy are treated with antiepileptic drug (AED) polytherapy. Several factors influence the choice of early add-on therapy, and deciding on the most appropriate drug can be difficult. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide as early add-on therapy in patients with partial-onset seizures. METHODS: REALLY (REtrospective study of lAcosamide as earLy add-on aLong one Year) was a multicenter, retrospective, 1-year, real-life study. Patients included were aged older than 16 years, had partial-onset seizures, and were treated with lacosamide as add-on therapy after one or two prior AEDs. Data were collected retrospectively from clinical records. The primary study objective was to assess the efficacy of lacosamide over 12 months (seizure-free and responder rates), and the secondary objective was to assess the tolerability of lacosamide at 3, 6, and 12 months [adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation]. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-nine patients were enrolled in the study; 89 patients (44.7 %) had tried one AED and 110 patients (55.3 %) had tried two AEDs before lacosamide. At 12 months, the proportion of patients who were seizure free was 44.9 %, and 76 % of patients were responders. The seizure-free rate at 12 months for patients who had previously received one or two AEDs was 58 and 34.3 %, and the responder rate at 12 months was 83.0 and 70.4 %, respectively. The AE rate was 21.5 % at 3 months, 27.1 % at 6 months, and 31.2 % at 12 months, with 7.0 % of patients discontinuing treatment because of an AE. The most common AE reported was dizziness (11.6 %). Cryptogenic epilepsy, a higher number of prior AEDs, and the use of a sodium channel blocker at onset were associated with a worse outcome. The number of concomitant AEDs decreased over 1 year (Z = 5.89; p < 0.001). Twenty-two patients were converted to lacosamide monotherapy with at least one evaluation ≥6 months from the beginning of monotherapy conversion. CONCLUSIONS: Lacosamide was effective and well tolerated as early add-on treatment in patients who had received one or two previous AEDs.