Perampanel as monotherapy or first adjunctive therapy in pediatric and adult patients with epilepsy: the first United States-based phase IV open-label ELEVATE study.

ELEVATE (Study 410; NCT03288129) is the first prospective, multicenter, open-label, Phase IV study of perampanel as monotherapy or first adjunctive therapy in patients aged ≥ 4 years with focal-onset seizures or generalized tonic-clonic seizures in the United States. The study included Screening, Titration (≤ 13 weeks), Maintenance (39 weeks), and Follow-up (4 weeks) Periods. During Titration, perampanel was initiated at 2 mg/day and up-titrated to 4 mg/day at Week 3. Depending on response and tolerability, optional up-titrations to a maximum of 12 mg/day occurred. The primary endpoint was retention rate; additional endpoints included seizure-freedom rate, 50% responder rate, and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). At baseline, 10 (18.5%) patients were assigned to the monotherapy group and 44 (81.5%) patients to the first adjunctive therapy group. However, due to the addition of an anti-seizure medication along with perampanel on the first day of treatment, one patient was excluded from the monotherapy subgroup analyses. The mean perampanel exposure duration was 39.8 weeks and 32 (59.3%) patients completed the study. Retention rate at 12 months (or study completion) was 63.0% (monotherapy, 77.8%; first adjunctive therapy, 59.1%). Seizure-freedom rate during the Maintenance Period was 32.7% (monotherapy, 44.4%; first adjunctive therapy, 29.5%) and the 50% responder rate was 78.7% (monotherapy, 85.7%; first adjunctive therapy, 76.9%). TEAEs and serious TEAEs were reported by 88.9% (n = 48/54) and 7.4% (n = 4/54) of patients, respectively. Overall, the efficacy and safety of perampanel as monotherapy or first adjunctive therapy support the use of perampanel as early-line treatment for epilepsy.

A randomized phase 2b efficacy study in patients with seizure episodes with a predictable pattern using Staccato® alprazolam for rapid seizure termination.

OBJECTIVE: Alprazolam administered via the Staccato® breath-actuated device is delivered into the deep lung for rapid systemic exposure and is a potential therapy for rapid epileptic seizure termination (REST). We conducted an inpatient study (ENGAGE-E-001 [NCT03478982]) in patients with stereotypic seizure episodes with prolonged or repetitive seizures to determine whether Staccato alprazolam rapidly terminates seizures in a small observed population after administration under direct supervision. METHODS: Adult patients with established diagnosis of focal and/or generalized epilepsy with a documented history of seizure episodes with a predictable pattern were enrolled. They were randomized 1:1:1 to double-blind treatment of a single seizure event with one dose of Staccato alprazolam 1.0 mg or 2.0 mg, or Staccato placebo in an inpatient unit. The primary end point of the study was the proportion of responders in each treatment group achieving seizure activity cessation within 2 min after administration of study drug and no recurrence of seizure activity within 2 h. RESULTS: A total of 273 patients were screened, and 116 randomized patients received treatment with the study drug in the double-blind part. The proportion of treated patients who were responders was 65.8% for each of Staccato alprazolam 1.0 mg (n = 38; p = .0392) and 2.0 mg (n = 38; p = .0392), compared with 42.5% for Staccato placebo (n = 40). Staccato alprazolam was well tolerated when administered as a single dose of 1.0 or 2.0 mg: cough and somnolence were the most common adverse events (AEs) (both 14.5%), followed by dysgeusia (13.2%). AEs were mostly mild or moderate in intensity; there were no treatment-related serious AEs. SIGNIFICANCE: Both 1.0 mg and 2.0 mg doses of Staccato alprazolam demonstrated efficacy in rapidly terminating seizures in an inpatient setting and were well tolerated. The next step is a Phase 3 confirmatory study to demonstrate efficacy and safety of Staccato alprazolam for rapid cessation of seizures in an outpatient setting.

Post hoc analysis of a phase 3 study for treatment of uncontrolled focal seizures: Adjunctive cenobamate dose and seizure reduction by baseline seizure frequency.

This post hoc analysis (n = 240) of a subset of study sites (10 eligible US sites) from an open-label phase 3 study assessed whether baseline seizure frequency (<3 seizures/28 days vs ≥3 seizures/28 days) impacted mean cenobamate dose required to achieve 100% seizure reduction, duration of this response, and responder rates. Patients with uncontrolled focal seizures taking stable doses of 1-3 antiseizure medications were administered increasing doses of cenobamate (12.5, 25, 50, 100, 150, 200 mg/day) over 12 weeks at 2-week intervals. Further increases to 400 mg/day by 50-mg/day biweekly increments were allowed during the maintenance phase. Eligible patients were required to have consistent raw seizure data and good-quality data for ≥ 85% of the time spent in the study. Data were assessed until last visit and at data cut-off, on or after September 1, 2019. Among all 240 patients, 127 (52.9%) had < 3 seizures/28 days, and 113 (47.1%) had ≥ 3 seizures/28 days at baseline. Among patients continuing cenobamate at data cut-off (n = 177), 51% (90/177) and 49% (87/177) had < 3 and ≥ 3 seizures/28 days at baseline, respectively. Retention rate at data cut-off was 73.8% (177/240 patients), and these patients had a median time on study of 32.9 months (range: 22.1-43.0 months). 33.9% of patients continuing cenobamate (60/177) achieved 100% seizure reduction for ≥ 12 months at data cut-off, with 44.4% and 23.0% in patients with < 3 and ≥ 3 seizures/28 days at baseline, respectively. Regardless of baseline seizure frequency, responder rates at ≥ 50%, ≥ 75%, and ≥ 90% during the maintenance phase were similar (∼81%, ∼62%, and ∼43%, respectively). Mean±SD cenobamate dose for patients continuing cenobamate was 254.0 ± 82.1 mg/day, with means of 237.9 ± 78.1 mg/day and 270.7 ± 83.1 mg/day in patients with < 3 and ≥ 3 seizures/28 days at baseline, respectively. Among patients who had 100% seizure reduction for ≥ 12 months at data cut-off (n = 60), the mean cenobamate dose was 226.4 ± 75.4 mg/day and 255.1 ± 93.7 mg/day in patients with < 3 and ≥ 3 seizures/28 days at baseline, respectively. The current data suggest that cenobamate was effective regardless of baseline seizure frequency, with both groups having a high number of patients reaching 100% seizure reduction. A higher percentage of patients with less vs more frequent seizures at baseline reached zero seizures, suggesting these patients may reach 100% seizure reduction at lower cenobamate doses than those with more frequent seizures. Cenobamate dose varied slightly (∼30 mg/day) across patients who were stratified by baseline seizure frequency, but future analyses are necessary to determine whether patients with more frequent seizures require higher doses of cenobamate to achieve zero seizures.

Tolerability and efficacy of adjunctive brivaracetam in adults with focal seizures by concomitant antiseizure medication use: Pooled results from three phase 3 trials.

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to evaluate safety/tolerability and efficacy of adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV) in patients on one or two concomitant antiseizure medications (ASMs) and in patients on one specific concomitant ASM. METHODS: Post hoc analysis was made of double-blind trials (N01252/NCT00490035, N01253/NCT00464269, and N01358/NCT01261325) in adults with focal seizures randomized to BRV (50-200 mg/day; approved therapeutic dose range for adults) or placebo with concomitant ASM regimen unchanged throughout a 12-week evaluation period. Outcomes were analyzed in patients on one or two concomitant ASMs, and those on concomitant carbamazepine (CBZ), lamotrigine (LTG), oxcarbazepine (OXC), or valproate (VPA) only. RESULTS: Patients randomized to BRV with one or two concomitant ASMs, respectively (n = 181/557), reported similar incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; 68.0%/66.4%), drug-related TEAEs (41.4%/41.5%), and TEAEs leading to discontinuation (6.6%/5.4%). Respective values for patients randomized to placebo with one or two concomitant ASMs (n = 95/331) were 60.0%/60.7% (TEAEs), 32.6%/30.2% (drug-related TEAEs), and 2.1%/4.5% (TEAEs leading to discontinuation). The incidences of TEAEs, drug-related TEAEs, and TEAEs leading to discontinuation by specific concomitant ASM (CBZ, LTG, OXC, VPA) were similar to the overall incidences in patients taking one concomitant ASM. In patients on one or two concomitant ASMs, respectively, 50% responder rates were numerically higher on BRV (42.3%/36.8% [n = 175/511]) versus placebo (18.3%/19.5% [n = 93/298]). Patients with one or two ASMs on BRV (n = 175/509) versus placebo (n = 92/298) also had numerically higher 100% responder rates (BRV, 9.1%/4.5%; placebo, 1.1%/.3%) and seizure freedom (6.9%/3.7%; 1.1%/0). For patients taking concomitant CBZ, LTG, OXC, or VPA, efficacy was numerically higher with BRV (n = 54/30/27/27) versus placebo (n = 34/13/10/14-15; 50% responder rates: BRV, 31.5%/30.0%/40.7%/70.4%; placebo, 17.6%/7.7%/20.0%/33.3%; 100% responder rates: BRV, 5.6%/10.0%/11.1%/11.1%; placebo, 0 for all; seizure freedom: BRV, 3.7%/6.7%/7.4%/11.1%; placebo, 0 for all). SIGNIFICANCE: Therapeutic doses of BRV were efficacious and well tolerated regardless of the number of concomitant ASMs (one or two) or specific concomitant ASM (CBZ, LTG, OXC, VPA).

Long-term individual retention with cenobamate in adults with focal seizures: Pooled data from the clinical development program.

OBJECTIVE: We determined retention on open-label cenobamate therapy in the clinical development program to assess the long-term efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive cenobamate in individuals with uncontrolled focal seizures. METHODS: Data from two randomized, controlled cenobamate studies and one open-label safety and pharmacokinetic study were pooled. Based on the percentage of participants remaining on treatment, retention rates were estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. We performed two additional analyses to assess factors contributing to retention, stratifying a robust data set (through 2 years) by cenobamate modal dose and frequently used concomitant anti-seizure medications. Cenobamate discontinuations and treatment-emergent adverse events were summarized. RESULTS: Data from 1844 participants were pooled: 149 from a single-dose randomized trial, 355 from a multi-dose randomized trial, and 1340 from an open-label safety and pharmacokinetic study. Most participants from randomized trials continued in open-label extensions, and pooled data represent >95% of participants exposed to cenobamate. Baseline characteristics and disease and treatment histories were similar across studies. Median duration of cenobamate exposure was 34 months, with a median modal dose of 200 mg/day. Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative cenobamate retention rates were 80% at 1 year and 72% at 2 years. Once participants reached the maintenance phase, retention rates were consistently high in participants receiving ≥100 mg/day cenobamate, and concomitant anti-seizure medications did not affect long-term retention. By 2 years, 535 (29%) had actually discontinued cenobamate; the most common reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (37.6%), withdrawal of consent (21.1%), and other (16.8%). SIGNIFICANCE: Treatment retention rates provide a proxy measure for long-term efficacy, safety, tolerability, and adherence. The consistently high retention rates we found suggest that cenobamate may be an effective and well-tolerated new treatment option for people with drug-resistant focal seizures.

Post hoc analysis of a phase 3, multicenter, open-label study of cenobamate for treatment of uncontrolled focal seizures: Effects of dose adjustments of concomitant antiseizure medications.

OBJECTIVE: To report post hoc results on how adjustments to baseline antiseizure medications (ASMs) in a subset of study sites (10 US sites) from a long-term, open-label phase 3 study of adjunctive cenobamate affected tolerability, efficacy, and retention. METHODS: Patients with uncontrolled focal seizures taking stable doses of one to three ASMs were administered increasing doses of cenobamate (12.5, 25, 50, 100, 150, 200 mg/day) over 12 weeks at 2-week intervals (target dose = 200 mg/day). Further increases to 400 mg/day by 50 mg/day biweekly increments were allowed during maintenance phase. Dose adjustments of cenobamate and concomitant ASMs were allowed. Data were assessed until last visit, at data cut-off, on or after September 1, 2019. RESULTS: A total of 240 patients meeting eligibility criteria were assessed (median [max] exposure 30.2 [43.0] months), with 177 patients continuing cenobamate at data cut-off. Most common baseline concomitant ASMs were lacosamide, levetiracetam, lamotrigine, zonisamide, and clobazam. For most baseline concomitant ASMs, ~70% of patients taking that ASM were continuing cenobamate at data cut-off. Patients continuing cenobamate had greater mean ASM dose reductions and percent dose changes from baseline vs those who discontinued. Of patients continuing cenobamate, 24.6% discontinued one or more concomitant ASMs completely. Dose decreases for all concomitant ASMs generally occurred during titration or early maintenance phases and were mostly due to central nervous system (CNS)-related adverse events such as somnolence, dizziness, unsteady gait, and fatigue. Responder rates from ≥50% through 100% for patients continuing cenobamate were generally similar regardless of concomitant ASMs (of those most commonly taken), with ~81% being ≥50% responders and ~12% achieving 100% seizure reduction in the maintenance phase, which lasted up to 40.2 (median = 29.5) months. SIGNIFICANCE: Concomitant ASM dose reductions were associated with more patients remaining on cenobamate. This is likely due to efficacy and improved tolerability, with overall reduced concomitant drug burden in patients with uncontrolled seizures despite taking one to three baseline concomitant ASMs.

Efficacy of cenobamate for uncontrolled focal seizures: Post hoc analysis of a Phase 3, multicenter, open-label study.

OBJECTIVE: To report long-term post hoc efficacy and safety data from 10 US study sites from an open-label Phase 3 study of adjunctive cenobamate (NCT02535091). METHODS: Patients with uncontrolled focal seizures taking stable doses of 1-3 antiseizure medications (ASMs) were administered increasing daily doses of cenobamate (12.5, 25, 50, 100, 150, 200 mg/day) over 12 weeks at 2-week intervals (target dose = 200 mg/day). Further increases to 400 mg/day by 50-mg/day increments biweekly were allowed during the maintenance phase. Dose adjustments of cenobamate and concomitant ASMs were allowed. Data were assessed until the last clinic visit on or after September 1, 2019. RESULTS: Of 255 patients, 240 with focal aware motor, focal impaired awareness, or focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizure data while on treatment were evaluated (median [maximum] exposure = 30.2 [43.0] months across the entire study). Median baseline seizure frequency/28 days was 2.8 (mean = 18.1). Of the 240 patients, 177 (73.8%) were continuing cenobamate treatment at data cutoff. The ≥50% responder rate for the total treatment duration was 71.7% (172/240). During titration, the ≥50% responder rates were 48.1% during Weeks 1-4 (12.5-25 mg/day cenobamate) and 61.7% during Weeks 5-8 (50-100 mg/day cenobamate). Among all patients who received a dose of cenobamate in the maintenance phase (n = 214), 13.1% (28/214) and 40.2% (86/214) achieved 100% and ≥90% seizure reduction during their entire maintenance treatment duration (median = 29.5 months). Among all patients, 87 (36.3%) had any consecutive ≥12-month duration of 100% seizure reduction. Common treatment-emergent adverse events among all 240 patients included fatigue (34.6%), dizziness (32.1%), and somnolence (29.6%). SIGNIFICANCE: This post hoc analysis of a subset of patients from the long-term open-label study showed high rates of sustained 100% and ≥90% seizure reduction, with many achieving response early during titration. These findings suggest durable seizure frequency reduction with cenobamate in adults with uncontrolled focal seizures.

Final results from a Phase 3, long-term, open-label, repeat-dose safety study of diazepam nasal spray for seizure clusters in patients with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: A Phase 3 open-label safety study (NCT02721069) evaluated long-term safety of diazepam nasal spray (Valtoco) in patients with epilepsy and frequent seizure clusters. METHODS: Patients were 6-65 years old with diagnosed epilepsy and seizure clusters despite stable antiseizure medications. The treatment period was 12 months, with study visits at Day 30 and every 60 days thereafter, after which patients could elect to continue. Doses were based on age and weight. Seizure and treatment information was recorded in diaries. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), nasal irritation, and olfactory changes were recorded. RESULTS: Of 163 patients in the safety population, 117 (71.8%) completed the study. Duration of exposure was ≥12 months for 81.6% of patients. There was one death (sudden unexpected death in epilepsy) and one withdrawal owing to a TEAE (major depression), both considered unlikely to be related to treatment. Diazepam nasal spray was administered 4390 times for 3853 seizure clusters, with 485 clusters treated with a second dose within 24 h; 53.4% of patients had monthly average usage of one to two doses, 41.7% two to five doses, and 4.9% more than five doses. No serious TEAEs were considered to be treatment related. TEAEs possibly or probably related to treatment (n = 30) were most commonly nasal discomfort (6.1%); headache (2.5%); and dysgeusia, epistaxis, and somnolence (1.8% each). Only 13 patients (7.9%) showed nasal irritation, and there were no relevant olfactory changes. The safety profile of diazepam nasal spray was generally similar across subgroups based on age, monthly usage, concomitant benzodiazepine therapy, or seasonal allergy/rhinitis. SIGNIFICANCE: In this large open-label safety study, the safety profile of diazepam nasal spray was consistent with the established profile of rectal diazepam, and the high retention rate supports effectiveness in this population. A second dose was used in only 12.6% of seizure clusters.

Consistent safety and tolerability of Valtoco® (diazepam nasal spray) in relationship to usage frequency in patients with seizure clusters: Interim results from a phase 3, long-term, open-label, repeat-dose safety study.

OBJECTIVE: Need for rescue therapy differs among patients with seizure clusters. Diazepam nasal spray is approved to treat seizure clusters in patients with epilepsy ≥6 years of age. This analysis used interim data from a phase 3 safety study to assess safety profile and effectiveness of diazepam nasal spray using average number of doses/month as a proxy measurement. METHODS: This phase 3, open-label, repeat-dose, safety study of diazepam nasal spray enrolled patients (6-65 years) with epilepsy and need of benzodiazepine rescue. Patients were stratified by average number of doses/month (<2, moderate frequency; 2-5, high frequency; >5, very-high frequency). Safety was evaluated based on treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), assessed nasal irritation, and olfaction. The proportion of treatments given as a second dose was used as an exploratory proxy for effectiveness. RESULTS: Of 175 enrolled patients (data cutoff, October 31, 2019), 158 received ≥1 dose of diazepam nasal spray. Frequency of use was moderate in 43.7% of patients, high in 50.6% of patients, and very high in 5.7% of patients. Patients treated 3397 seizure episodes (moderate frequency, 14.2%; high frequency, 59.9%; very high frequency, 25.8%). Nasal discomfort was the most common treatment-related TEAE in all groups. No notable changes in nasal irritation or olfaction were observed. Second doses represented only 2.5%, 7.5%, and 17.2% of all doses in the moderate-, high-, and very-high-frequency groups, respectively. Overall retention rate was 82.9%, without an observed relationship to frequency of use. SIGNIFICANCE: Frequency of dosing diazepam nasal spray had little impact on the safety/tolerability profile across a range of <2 to >5 doses/month. Effectiveness was suggested for all dosing frequencies by the high proportion of seizure clusters not treated with a second dose. These results support the utility, safety profile, and effectiveness of diazepam nasal spray across frequencies of seizure cluster burden.

Evaluation of diazepam nasal spray in patients with epilepsy concomitantly using maintenance benzodiazepines: An interim subgroup analysis from a phase 3, long-term, open-label safety study.

OBJECTIVE: Diazepam nasal spray (Valtoco), indicated for acute treatment of frequent seizure activity (seizure clusters) in patients with epilepsy ≥6 years of age, is designed to be a rapid, noninvasive, socially acceptable route of administration. This interim analysis evaluated the safety profile of diazepam nasal spray in patients with and without concomitant use of benzodiazepines, with use of a second dose for a seizure cluster as a proxy for effectiveness. METHODS: A long-term, phase 3, open-label safety study enrolled patients with epilepsy who had seizures despite a stable antiseizure medication regimen. RESULTS: Among 175 patients enrolled by October 31, 2019, a total of 158 were treated with diazepam nasal spray (aged 6-65 years; 53.8% female). Of those, 119 (75.3%) received concomitant benzodiazepines (60, chronic; 59, intermittent); 39 (24.7%) did not. Use of a second dose was similar in patients using chronic concomitant benzodiazepines (second dose in 11.1% [144/1299]) and those with no concomitant benzodiazepines (second dose in 10.3% [41/398]). Treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred for 80.0% with chronic use of concomitant benzodiazepines and 61.5% without. Cardiorespiratory depression was not reported, and no serious TEAEs were treatment related. Study retention was high: 83.3% in the chronic benzodiazepine group and 76.9% in the no-benzodiazepine group. Findings were similar in a sub-analysis of patients who were (n = 44) or were not (n = 75) taking clobazam. SIGNIFICANCE: This analysis of patients from a long-term study shows a similar safety profile of diazepam nasal spray in patients with and without concomitant benzodiazepines, and consistent with the established profile for diazepam. Use of a single dose of diazepam nasal spray and high study retention rates suggest the effectiveness of diazepam nasal spray in patients irrespective of chronic daily benzodiazepine use. Results were similar in the clobazam sub-analysis. These results support the safety and effectiveness of diazepam nasal spray in patients with concomitant benzodiazepine use.

Long-term safety, efficacy, and quality of life outcomes with adjunctive brivaracetam treatment at individualized doses in patients with epilepsy: An up to 11-year, open-label, follow-up trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term safety/tolerability of brivaracetam at individualized doses ≤200 mg/d (primary) and maintenance of efficacy over time (secondary) in adults with focal seizures or primary generalized seizures (PGS) enrolled in phase 3, open-label, long-term follow-up trial N01199 (NCT00150800). METHODS: Patients ≥16 years of age who had completed double-blind, placebo-controlled adjunctive brivaracetam trials NCT00175825, NCT00490035, NCT00464269, or NCT00504881 were eligible. Outcomes included safety, efficacy, and quality of life. RESULTS: The safety set included 667 patients (focal seizures, 97.8%; PGS, 2.2%); the efficacy set included 648 patients with focal seizures and 15 patients with PGS. Overall, 49.2% of patients had ≥48 months of exposure. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 91.2% of all patients (91.3% of focal seizures group), brivaracetam discontinuation due to TEAEs in 14.8%, drug-related TEAEs in 56.7%, and serious TEAEs in 22.8%. The most common TEAEs in the focal seizures group (≥15%) were headache (25.3%) and dizziness (21.9%). Mean changes from baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores at last value during 2-year evaluation were -0.7 (standard deviation [SD] = 4.3) and -0.2 (SD = 4.4) overall. In the focal seizures group, median reduction from baseline in focal seizure frequency/28 days was 57.3%, 50% responder rate was 55.6%, and 6-month and 12-month seizure freedom rates were 30.3% and 20.3%, respectively. Efficacy outcomes improved by exposure duration cohort and then stabilized through the 108-month cohort. Mean improvement from baseline in Patient-Weighted Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory total score (efficacy set) was 5.7 (SD = 16.1, Cohen's d = 0.35) at month 12 and 6.5 (SD = 18.0, Cohen's d = 0.36) at month 24. SIGNIFICANCE: Adjunctive brivaracetam was well tolerated, with a good safety profile in long-term use in adults with epilepsy at individualized doses. Approximately half of the patients remained in the trial at 4 years. Brivaracetam reduced focal seizure frequency versus baseline. Efficacy improved with increasing exposure duration and remained stable through the 9-year cohort.

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.

Psychiatric and cognitive adverse events: A pooled analysis of three phase III trials of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate for partial-onset seizures.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the nature and incidence of psychiatric and cognitive adverse events (AEs) reported with eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) used as adjunctive treatment for refractory partial-onset seizures (POS) in adults. METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of data pooled from three randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (BIA-2093-301, -302, -304). After an 8-week baseline period, patients received placebo or adjunctive ESL 400mg (studies 301 and 302 only), 800mg, or 1200mg once daily (QD) for 14weeks (2-week titration period, 12-week maintenance period). Psychiatric and cognitive AEs were identified from individual patient data. Suicidality was also evaluated using the Columbia-Classification Algorithm of Suicide Assessment (C-CASA), or the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS). P-values were obtained using the chi-square test of independence or Fisher's exact test, without correcting for multiplicity. RESULTS: The analysis population included 1447 patients (ESL, n=1021; placebo, n = 426). Psychiatric treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) occurred in 10.8% of patients receiving ESL, and in a comparable proportion (10.3%) of patients receiving placebo (p=0.802). The incidence of depression and suicidality-related TEAEs was higher for ESL (7.4%) vs. placebo (3.8%) (p=0.009). The occurrence of these TEAEs differed between treatment groups (p = 0.010), but there was no notable trend between increasing ESL dose and increasing incidence of depression and suicidality-related TEAEs. Aggression/hostility-related TEAEs occurred in <0.1% of patients taking ESL vs. 0.9% taking placebo. The incidence of cognitive TEAEs was higher for ESL (7.1%) vs. placebo (4.0%) (p=0.023); incidences of memory impairment, attention disturbance, apathy, and aphasia were higher for ESL 1200mg than for other treatment groups. Incidences of psychiatric and cognitive serious AEs (SAEs) were 0.6% and 0.2% with ESL, and 0.5% and 0% with placebo, respectively. Psychiatric and cognitive TEAEs leading to discontinuation occurred in 1.9% and 1.4% of patients taking ESL, and 0.7% and 0.5% taking placebo, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In phase III clinical trials of adjunctive ESL for treatment-refractory POS, psychiatric and cognitive TEAEs were reported infrequently with ESL and placebo. The incidences of depression and suicidality-related TEAEs and of cognitive TEAEs were higher for patients taking ESL vs. placebo. Incidences of psychiatric and cognitive SAEs, and TEAEs leading to discontinuation, were low with ESL and placebo.

Influence of titration schedule and maintenance dose on the tolerability of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate: An integrated analysis of three randomized placebo-controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of titration schedule and maintenance dose on the incidence and type of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL). METHODS: Data from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials were analyzed. Patients with refractory partial-onset seizures were randomized to maintenance doses of ESL 400, 800, or 1200mg QD (dosing was initiated at 400 or 800mg QD) or placebo. The incidence of TEAEs was analyzed during the double-blind period (2-week titration phase; 12-week maintenance phase), according to the randomized maintenance dose and the titration schedule. RESULTS: 1447 patients were included in the analysis. During the first week of treatment, 62% of patients taking ESL 800mg QD had ≥1 TEAE, vs 35% of those taking 400mg QD and 32% of the placebo group; dizziness, somnolence, nausea, and headache were numerically more frequent in patients taking ESL 800mg than those taking ESL 400mg QD. During the double-blind period, the incidences of common TEAEs were lower in patients who initiated ESL at 400mg vs 800mg QD. For the 800 and 1200mg QD maintenance doses, rates of TEAEs leading to discontinuation were lower in patients who began treatment with 400mg than in those who began taking ESL 800mg QD. CONCLUSIONS: Initiation of ESL at 800mg QD is feasible. However, initiating treatment with ESL 400mg QD for 1 or 2 weeks is recommended, being associated with a lower incidence of TEAEs, and related discontinuations. For some patients, treatment may be initiated at 800mg QD, if the need for more immediate seizure reduction outweighs concerns about increased risk of adverse reactions during initiation.

Adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate: A pooled analysis of three phase III trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of once-daily (QD) adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL). METHODS: This post-hoc pooled analysis of three randomized, placebo-controlled trials (2093-301, -302, -304) involved adults with refractory partial-onset seizures (POS) receiving 1-3 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). All studies included 8-week baseline, 2-week titration, and 12-week maintenance periods. Patients were randomized equally to placebo, ESL 400mg (studies 301, 302), 800mg, or 1200mg QD. The primary endpoint was standardized seizure frequency (SSF; per 4weeks); secondary endpoints included responder rates (maintenance period), and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), TEAEs leading to discontinuation, serious AEs (SAEs), and deaths. RESULTS: The safety and efficacy analysis populations totaled 1447 and 1410 patients, respectively. SSF was significantly reduced versus placebo with ESL 800mg (p=0.0001) and 1200mg (p<0.0001) but not 400mg (p=0.81). There were no significant interactions between treatment effect and age, gender, race/ethnicity, geographic region, epilepsy duration, or concomitant AED use. Incidences of TEAEs and TEAEs leading to discontinuation increased with ESL dose. Incidences of the most frequent TEAEs were lower for patients who initiated dosing at 400 versus 800mg QD, regardless of titration regimen and maintenance dose. SAE incidence was <10%; there were 3 deaths (placebo, n=2; ESL 800mg, n=1). CONCLUSIONS: ESL (800 and 1200mg QD) was effective and well tolerated as adjunctive therapy for adults with refractory POS.

Safety and tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam as intravenous infusion or bolus in patients with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES: An intravenous (IV) formulation of brivaracetam (BRV), a selective, high-affinity ligand for synaptic vesicle protein 2A, has been developed. We investigated the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of adjunctive IV BRV administered as a bolus or infusion to adults with epilepsy. METHODS: A phase III, multicenter, randomized, four-arm, parallel-group study (NCT01405508) of patients aged 16-70 years with focal or generalized epilepsy uncontrolled by 1-2 antiepileptic drugs was undertaken. The study comprised a 7-day baseline period, a 7-day double-blind run-in period (oral BRV 200 mg/day or placebo [PBO] twice daily [BID]), and 4.5-day open-label evaluation period (IV BRV 200 mg/day BID; 2-min bolus or 15-min infusion, total nine doses). Patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 PBO/BRV bolus; PBO/BRV infusion; BRV/BRV bolus; BRV/BRV infusion. Safety and tolerability were assessed using adverse events, electrocardiography, vital signs, and laboratory assessments. BRV plasma concentrations were measured before and 15 min after the first and last IV doses. RESULTS: Of the 105 patients randomized (53.3% women; 77.1% white; mean [standard deviation; SD] age 41.6 [12.2] years), 103 (98.1%) completed the study. Treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) incidence during IV BRV was similar whether IV BRV was initiated first (70.6%) or followed oral BRV (66.0%), and whether it was administered as a bolus (71.2%) or infusion (65.4%). Injection-related TEAEs were reported by 9.6% of patients following bolus and 11.5% following infusion. No serious TEAEs were reported. IV BRV plasma concentrations were higher after the first dose in the conversion groups than initiation groups, and slightly higher in the bolus arm than the infusion arm; concentrations were similar in all patients after the last IV dose. SIGNIFICANCE: IV BRV was generally well tolerated, with similar tolerability as a bolus or infusion and independent of de novo administration or as conversion from oral BRV tablets. IV BRV may be an option for patients who are unable to receive oral BRV.

Safety and tolerability of lacosamide as adjunctive therapy for adults with partial-onset seizures: Analysis of data pooled from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe a priori protocol-defined analyses to evaluate the safety and tolerability of adjunctive oral lacosamide (200-600 mg/day) in adults (ages 16-70 years) with partial-onset seizures (POS) using data pooled from three similarly designed randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (SP667, SP754 [NCT00136019], SP755 [NCT00220415]). METHODS: Patients with POS (≥2 years' duration, ≥2 previous antiepileptic drugs [AEDs]) uncontrolled by a stable dosing regimen of 1-3 concomitant AEDs were randomized to treatment with lacosamide at doses of 200 mg/day, 400 mg/day, or 600 mg/day, or placebo. Studies comprised a 4- to 6-week titration phase to target dose followed by a 12-week maintenance phase. Safety outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of particular relevance to patients with POS, overall TEAEs, and discontinuations due to TEAEs. Post hoc analyses included evaluation of TEAEs potentially related to cognition and TEAEs leading to discontinuation analyzed by concomitant AEDs. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred eight patients were randomized to and received treatment; 944 to lacosamide and 364 to placebo. Most patients (84.4%) were taking 2 or 3 concomitant AEDs. The most common drug-associated TEAEs (reported by ≥5% of patients in any lacosamide dose group and with an incidence at least twice that reported for placebo during the treatment phase) were dizziness (30.6% for lacosamide vs 8.2% for placebo), nausea (11.4% vs 4.4%), and diplopia (10.5% vs 1.9%). Common drug-associated TEAEs generally appeared to be dose-related, and the incidence of each was lower during the 12-week maintenance phase than during the titration phase. Most TEAEs were either mild or moderate in intensity; severe TEAEs were predominantly observed with lacosamide 600 mg/day. No individual serious TEAE occurred in ≥1% of all lacosamide-treated patients. Treatment-emergent adverse events led to discontinuation in 8.1%, 17.2%, and 28.6% of the lacosamide 200-, 400-, and 600-mg/day groups, respectively (vs 4.9% of placebo). Few TEAEs were related to rash, weight loss/gain, changes in clinical chemistry parameters, or psychiatric disturbances, or were seizure-related. The odds of reporting any potential cognition-related TEAE vs placebo increased with dose and were similar between lacosamide doses of 200 and 400mg/day and placebo (odds ratio 1.3, 95% confidence interval 0.7-2.4). Discontinuations due to TEAEs based on most commonly used AEDs taken in combination with lacosamide (all doses combined) were carbamazepine (15.3% [51/334] vs 3.9% [5/129] placebo), lamotrigine (19.2% [56/291] vs 4.3% [5/117]), and levetiracetam (10.1% [28/278] vs 3.9% [4/103]). CONCLUSIONS: The safety and tolerability profile of adjunctive lacosamide in this detailed evaluation was similar to that observed in the individual double-blind trials. Adjunctive lacosamide was associated with TEAEs related to the nervous system and gastrointestinal tract, predominantly during titration.

Bioequivalence of oral and intravenous carbamazepine formulations in adult patients with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, tolerability, and comparative pharmacokinetics (PK) of intravenous and oral carbamazepine. METHODS: In this phase 1, open-label study, adult patients with epilepsy on a stable oral carbamazepine dosage (400-2,000 mg/day) were converted to intravenous carbamazepine (administered at 70% of the oral dosage). A 28-day outpatient period preceded an up to 10-day inpatient period and a 30-day follow-up period. Intravenous carbamazepine was administered over 15 or 30 min every 6 h on days 1-7; some patients in the 15-min group were eligible to receive four 2- to 5-min (rapid) infusions on day 8. Patients underwent blood sampling to determine the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) for carbamazepine and metabolite carbamazepine-10,11-epoxide following oral (day 0) and intravenous carbamazepine administration (days 1, 7, and 8). Bioequivalence was evaluated in patients with normal renal function (creatinine clearance >80 ml/min). Safety assessments were conducted through day 38. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients enrolled and 77 completed the PK component. The mean daily oral and intravenous carbamazepine dosage for 64 PK-evaluable patients with normal renal function was 962.5 and 675.1 mg (70% of oral dosage), respectively. Steady-state minimum concentration (C(min)) and overall exposure (AUC0-24) for intravenous carbamazepine infused over 30, 15, or 2-5 min were similar to oral carbamazepine. The 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the adjusted means for AUC0-24, maximum concentration (Cmax), and C(min) were within the 80%-125% bioequivalence range for 30-min intravenous infusions versus oral administration, but exceeded the upper limit for Cmax for the 15-min and rapid infusions. All intravenous carbamazepine infusions were well tolerated. SIGNIFICANCE: Intravenous carbamazepine infusions (70% of oral daily dose) of 30-, 15-, and 2- to 5-min duration, given every 6 h, maintained patients' plasma carbamazepine concentrations. Intravenous carbamazepine 30-min infusions were bioequivalent to oral carbamazepine in patients with normal renal function; rapid infusions were well-tolerated in this study.

Intravenous carbamazepine as short-term replacement therapy for oral carbamazepine in adults with epilepsy: Pooled tolerability results from two open-label trials.

OBJECTIVE: To report tolerability findings and maintenance of seizure control from a pooled analysis of phase I open-label trial OV-1015 (NCT01079351) and phase III study 13181A (NCT01128959). METHODS: Patients receiving a stable oral dosage of carbamazepine were switched to an intravenous (IV) carbamazepine formulation solubilized in a cyclodextrin matrix (at a 70% dosage conversion) for either a 15- or a 30-min infusion every 6 h for up to 7 days and then switched back. A subset of patients who tolerated 15-min infusions also received 2- to 5-min (rapid) infusions. Assessments included physical and laboratory evaluations, electrocardiography (ECG) studies, as well as adverse event (AE) monitoring for tolerability. Convulsion/seizure AE terms and data from seizure diaries were used as proxies for the assessment of consistency of seizure control between formulations. RESULTS: Of the 203 patients exposed to IV carbamazepine (30 min, n = 43; 15 min, n = 160), 113 received 149 rapid infusions. During infusion, the most commonly reported AEs (≥ 5%) were dizziness (19%), somnolence (6%), headache (6%), and blurred vision (5%). IV carbamazepine was not associated with clinically relevant cardiac AEs. The tolerability profile appeared similar between patients who received <1,600 mg/day (n = 174) and ≥ 1,600 mg/day (n = 29) carbamazepine. Cyclodextrin exposure was not associated with clinically relevant changes in AEs or renal biomarkers. Seizure control was maintained as patients transitioned between oral and IV carbamazepine. SIGNIFICANCE: IV carbamazepine administered as multiple 30- or 15-min infusions every 6 h, and as a single rapid infusion, was well tolerated as a short-term replacement in adults with epilepsy receiving stable dosages of oral carbamazepine. Infusion site reactions, which were generally mild, were the only unique AEs identified; seizure control was generally unchanged when patients were switching between formulations.

Adjunctive use of controlled-release pregabalin in adults with treatment-resistant partial seizures: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of add-on pregabalin controlled-release formulation (PGB-CR) (doses of 165 or 330 mg/day) in patients with partial-onset seizures (POS). METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind (DB), parallel-group study of PGB-CR once-daily as adjunctive treatment in adults with treatment-resistant partial seizures. After an 8-week baseline period, eligible patients were randomized (1:1:1) to placebo, PGB-CR 165 mg, or PGB-CR 330 mg for 14 weeks, including a 2-week dose escalation. Primary endpoint was the loge -transformed 28-day seizure rate for all POS with observable component during the full 14-week double-blind treatment phase. Secondary endpoints included the 50% responder rate and percent change from baseline in 28-day POS rate. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-three patients were randomized and received treatment; placebo (n = 110), PGB-CR 330 mg (n = 100), PGB-CR 165 mg (n = 113); and 287 (88.9%) completed the trial. The primary efficacy analysis result, expressed as percent reduction from placebo, was 13.1% and 1.0% for PGB-CR 330 mg and PGB-CR 165 mg, respectively, and was not statistically significant (p = 0.091, 0.908). The proportion of 50% responders was similar for placebo (35.8%) and 165 mg PGB-CR (37.8%) and nominally higher for 330 mg PGB-CR (45.9%, p = 0.125 compared to placebo). The LS mean estimates of the percent change from baseline for placebo (-5.7%) was nominally smaller than 165 mg PGB-CR (-15.0%, p = 0.540) and 330 mg PGB-CR (-31.5%, p = 0.079); however, the median percent changes from baseline were not as well differentiated (placebo, -35.4%; 165 mg PGB-CR, -38.0%; 330 mg PGB-CR -43.4%). Rates of adverse events (AEs) were low for placebo and study drug; the most frequent reported AEs were dizziness, somnolence, and fatigue, consistent with the immediate-release formulation. SIGNIFICANCE: Results from this trial did not demonstrate that PGB-CR is effective in reducing seizure frequency below that of placebo. Both doses of PGB-CR were shown to be safe and well-tolerated.