Reductions in concomitant antiseizure medication drug load during adjunctive cenobamate therapy: Post-hoc analysis of a subset of patients from a phase 3, multicenter, open-label study.

OBJECTIVE: Many patients with epilepsy require polytherapy, which increases their antiseizure medication (ASM) drug load, a measure that considers the doses of all ASMs a patient is taking. Changes in concomitant ASM drug load after adding cenobamate were evaluated post-hoc in a subset of the open-label, phase 3 study. METHODS: Patients 18-70 years old with uncontrolled focal seizures taking 1-3 ASMs were enrolled. Total concomitant ASM drug load (not including cenobamate) was calculated by dividing the patient's prescribed dose for each ASM by its defined daily dose, per the World Health Organization, then summing the ratios. Changes in concomitant ASM drug load were measured from baseline in 3-month intervals up to 24 months by both total and class-specific ASM drug load. Subgroups of interest included: older adults (65-70 years), prior epilepsy-related surgery vs none, and baseline seizure frequency < 3 vs ≥ 3 seizures/28 days. RESULTS: Data from 240 patients were available (mean age 41.8 years, mean baseline drug load 3.57). Following cenobamate initiation, the mean concomitant ASM drug load was reduced by 29.4 % at Month 12 % and 31.8 % at Month 24. Reductions occurred in all assessed ASM drug classes, with the largest reduction in benzodiazepines (55.2 % at Month 24). Each assessed subgroup exceeded a 30 % reduction in concomitant ASM drug load at Month 24. Over 24 months, maintenance of ≥ 50 % response occurred in 89.3 %, 86.4 %, and 90.6 % of patients with low (-0.25 to <0), moderate (-0.59 to -0.25), or high (-3.3 to -0.59) numerical reductions in concomitant ASM drug load from baseline, respectively, compared with 86.0 % in patients with no change in drug load; maintenance of 100 % response occurred in 80.7 %, 84.3 %, and 70.0 % of patients with low, moderate, or high numerical reductions in concomitant ASM drug load, compared with 82.0 % in patients with no change. CONCLUSIONS: Adding cenobamate led to reduced mean concomitant ASM drug loads during 1 and 2 years of treatment. Reductions occurred regardless of ASM drug class, patient age, or epilepsy disease characteristics and did not impact maintenance of response rates.

Time to baseline seizure count in patients with focal seizures receiving adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate in a phase IV clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), a once-daily, orally-administered, anti-seizure medication (ASM), have primarily been established in treatment-resistant epilepsy patients, the population most often enrolled in clinical trials of anti-seizure medications. More recently, ESL was also shown to be effective and well-tolerated as first adjunctive therapy in non-treatment-resistant patients in an open-label, non-randomized, Phase IV, 24-week study of ESL using standard efficacy parameters in adults with focal seizures. OBJECTIVE: To determine the time required to reach baseline seizure count, as an alternative method of assessing the efficacy of adjunctive ESL in patients with relatively low baseline monthly seizure frequencies. This additional analysis was undertaken, as subtle changes and improvements are difficult to analyze using standard efficacy parameters, such as standardized seizure frequency reduction when the baseline frequency of seizures is particularly low. METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of the Phase IV study data, which investigated time to baseline seizure count in patients aged ≥ 18 years with focal seizures as an alternative measure of anti-seizure efficacy. In the Phase IV trial, patients had been enrolled into 2 groups: Arm 1: ESL as first adjunctive therapy to levetiracetam (LEV) or lamotrigine (LTG), the two most commonly-prescribed ASMs, in patients with inadequate response to treatment; Arm 2: ESL as a later adjunctive therapy, following prior use of 1-2 ASMs in patients who required an additional therapeutic option. RESULTS: The time to reach individual baseline seizure count was longer in patients with focal seizures receiving ESL as a first (Arm 1) versus later (Arm 2) adjunctive therapy (p = 0.005). Patients who received ESL as a first adjunctive therapy had a longer time to ESL discontinuation than patients who received ESL as a later adjunctive therapy (p = 0.04). In Arm 1, patients receiving concomitant LTG reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) significantly earlier than those receiving LEV (p = 0.02). Compared to patients receiving concomitant LTG, a greater number of patients in Arm 1 who were taking concomitant LEV had a modal ESL dose > 1200 mg and completed the full maintenance period. A greater number of patients in Arm 1 who were receiving concomitant LEV and completed the 24-week maintenance period reached a maximum ESL dose of 1600 mg, compared to those taking LTG, who reached a maximum ESL dose of 1200 mg. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of the Phase IV clinical trial data provides an alternative way of assessing efficacy beyond standardized seizure frequency reduction, in the context of relatively low monthly median seizure frequencies at baseline (SSF 2.0-2.4). These results provide further support for the use of ESL as an earlier or later adjunctive therapy to LEV or LTG.

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.

Efficacy of cenobamate for uncontrolled focal seizures in patients with previous epilepsy-related surgery: Post hoc analysis of a phase 3, multicenter, open-label study.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis of 10 US study sites from a long-term open-label phase 3 study of adjunctive cenobamate evaluated the efficacy of cenobamate in patients with prior epilepsy-related surgery. METHODS: Patients with uncontrolled focal seizures despite taking stable doses of 1-3 concomitant antiseizure medications (ASMs) received increasing doses of cenobamate (12.5, 25, 50, 100, 150, 200 mg/day) at 2-week intervals over 12 weeks (target dose, 200 mg/day). Further increases up to 400 mg/day using biweekly 50-mg/day increments 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 the 240 eligible patients, 85 had prior epilepsy-related surgery and 155 were nonsurgical patients. Baseline focal seizure frequency per 28 days was numerically higher among prior surgery (mean=25.9/median=4.1/range=0.3-562.3) versus nonsurgical (mean=13.8/median=2.4/range=0.2-534.2) patients. Among all patients, 100 % seizure reduction ≥ 12 months at any consecutive month interval occurred in 30.6 % (26/85) prior surgery and 39.4 % (61/155; p > 0.05) nonsurgical patients (cenobamate treatment median duration=32.9 months). Among the 177 patients still receiving cenobamate at the data cutoff, 29.2 % (19/65) of prior surgery and 36.6 % (41/112; p > 0.05) of nonsurgical patients had 100 % seizure reduction ≥ 12 months at the data cutoff. Cenobamate was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis supports the efficacy of cenobamate in patients with refractory focal seizures despite prior surgery. These findings suggest cenobamate may be considered early in the treatment regimen, including, in some patients, before surgery is considered.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety From an Open-Label Extension of Adjunctive Cenobamate in Patients With Uncontrolled Focal Seizures.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate long-term efficacy (percent seizure frequency reduction and responder rates), safety, and tolerability of adjunctive cenobamate in an open-label extension (OLE) of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. METHODS: Patients (aged 18-70 years) with uncontrolled focal seizures despite treatment with 1-3 antiseizure medications who completed the 18-week double-blind study (n=360) could enter the OLE, where they underwent a 2-week blinded conversion to cenobamate (target dose, 300 mg/day; min/max, 50/400 mg/day). RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-five patients were included in the OLE safety population (265 originally randomized to cenobamate, 90 originally randomized to placebo), and 354 were included in the OLE modified intent-to-treat population. As of July 2019, 58.9% (209/355) of patients were continuing cenobamate treatment and 141 had discontinued, including 16.6% (59/355) due to lack of efficacy, 8.7% (31/355) due to withdrawal by patient, and 7.6% (27/355) due to adverse events. Median (range) duration of OLE exposure was 53.9 (1.1-68.7) months. Retention rates at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months were 83%, 71%, 65%, and 62%, respectively. Median percent seizure frequency reduction over baseline increased with each 6-month OLE interval, up to 76.1% at months 43-48. Among observed patients, 16.4% (36/220) achieved 100% and 39.1% (86/220) achieved ≥90% seizure reduction during >36-48 months. Among the initial OLE mITT population, 10.2% (36/354) of patients achieved 100% and 24.3% (86/354) achieved ≥90% seizure reduction during >36-48 months. Similar to the double-blind study, adverse events (AEs) included dizziness, somnolence, fatigue, and headache. Serious AEs occurred in 20.3% (72/355) of patients. CONCLUSION: Long-term efficacy, including 100% and ≥90% seizure reduction, was sustained during 48 months of cenobamate treatment, with 71% retention at 24 months. No new safety issues were identified. These results confirm the findings of the double-blind study and support the potential long-term clinical benefit of cenobamate. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01866111. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class IV evidence that oral Cenobamate 50-400 mg/day is effective as an adjunctive treatment for the long-term management of patients with uncontrolled focal seizures previously treated with 1 to 3 ASMs.

PROVE: Retrospective, non-interventional, Phase IV study of perampanel in real-world clinical care of patients with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess retention, dosing, efficacy, and safety of perampanel in a large cohort of patients with epilepsy during routine clinical care. METHODS: PROVE was a retrospective, non-interventional Phase IV study (NCT03208660). Data were obtained retrospectively from the medical records of patients in the United States initiating perampanel after January 1, 2014, according to treating clinicians' recommendation. Retention rate was the primary efficacy endpoint. Secondary efficacy endpoints included median percent changes in seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline, seizure-freedom rate, and overall investigator impression of seizure effect. Safety endpoints included incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Efficacy and safety were also assessed according to baseline use of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications (EIASMs). RESULTS: Overall, 1703 patients were enrolled and included in the Safety Analysis Set (SAS; ≥1 baseline EIASMs, n = 358 [21.0%]; no baseline EIASMs, n = 1345 [79.0%]). Mean (standard deviation [SD]) cumulative duration of exposure to perampanel was 17.4 (15.7) months; mean (SD) daily perampanel dose was 5.6 (2.7) mg. The most frequent perampanel titration intervals were weekly (23.4%) and every 2 weeks (24.7%). Across the SAS, 24-month retention rate was 48.1% (n = 501/1042). Based on overall investigator impression at the end of treatment, 51.9%, 35.8%, and 12.3% of patients in the SAS experienced improvement, no change, or worsening of seizures, respectively. TEAEs occurred in 704 (41.3%) patients; 79 (4.6%) had serious TEAEs. The most common TEAE was dizziness (7.3%). There was some variation in efficacy according to EIASM use, while retention rates and safety were generally consistent. SIGNIFICANCE: In this final analysis of >1700 patients with epilepsy receiving perampanel in routine clinical care, favorable retention and sustained efficacy were demonstrated for ≥12 months.

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.

Perampanel in real-world clinical care of patients with epilepsy: Interim analysis of a phase IV study.

Objective: To assess the retention rate, efficacy, safety, and dosing of perampanel administered to patients with epilepsy during routine clinical care in the retrospective phase IV, PROVE Study (NCT03208660). Methods: Exposure, efficacy, and safety data were obtained from the medical records of patients initiating perampanel after January 1, 2014, across 29 US study sites. The cutoff date for this interim analysis was October 10, 2018. The primary efficacy endpoint was retention rate. Secondary efficacy endpoints included median percent changes in seizure frequency, seizure-freedom rate, and overall investigator impression of seizure effect. Results: All enrolled patients (N = 1121) received perampanel. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) cumulative duration of exposure to perampanel was 16.6 (14.7) months; overall mean (SD) daily perampanel dose was 5.7 (2.7) mg. Perampanel uptitration occurred weekly (21.1%), biweekly (23.8%), every 3 weeks (1.5%), other (43.3%), and unknown (10.3%). Across the Safety Analysis Set (N = 1121), retention rate on perampanel at 24 months was 49.5% (n = 319/645).At 12 months, the median reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline in the small number of patients for whom data were available was 75.0% (n = 85), and 30/85 (35.3%) patients were seizure free. Based on investigator impression at the end of treatment, improvement, no change (ie, stable), or worsening of seizures was reported in 54.3%, 33.7%, and 12.0% of patients, respectively.Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 500 (44.6%) patients; the most common were dizziness (9.2%), aggression (5.4%), and irritability (4.5%). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 32 (2.9%) patients. Significance: Favorable retention and sustained efficacy were demonstrated for ≥12 months following initiation of perampanel during routine clinical care in patients with epilepsy.

Expert opinion: Proposed diagnostic and treatment algorithms for Lennox-Gastaut syndrome in adult patients.

Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) is a severe developmental epileptic encephalopathy diagnosed in childhood that persists through adolescence and into adulthood. While the characteristics of LGS in pediatric patients are well defined, including "drop attacks", interictal slow spike and wave electroencephalogram (EEG) activity, and intellectual disability, these features can evolve over time, and different EEG activities may be present in adult patients with LGS. This may result in missed diagnoses in these patients and subsequent challenges for the adequate treatment of their seizures. Based on discussions held during the LGS Transition of Care advisory board meeting and thereafter, we developed proposed diagnostic and treatment algorithms for LGS in adult patients. We highlight readily available assessments to facilitate diagnosis of LGS, based on past medical history and physical examination. The LGS diagnostic algorithm recommends that clinicians consider the occurrence of wider seizure types and abnormal EEG activities to be potentially indicative of LGS. Seizure types may include atypical absence seizures, myoclonic seizures, focal seizures, and tonic-clonic seizures, and EEG may demonstrate background slowing, focal or multifocal epileptiform discharges, and diffuse fast rhythms during sleep, among other activities. Extended EEG during sleep and video-EEG should be used in equivocal cases. Treatment of LGS in adult patients should incorporate both antiseizure drug (ASD) therapy and nonpharmacologic approaches. Frequent reassessment of patients is considered a central aspect. ASDs were categorized based on order of preference for use in the treatment of LGS; Tier 1 comprises recommended first-line ASDs, and includes valproate, clobazam, lamotrigine, rufinamide, topiramate, and cannabidiol. Other treatment options include diet, neurostimulation, and surgical approaches. Developments with the potential to improve diagnosis in the future include genetic screening, while novel ASDs and advances in neurostimulation techniques may provide valuable treatment options. These algorithms should be frequently revisited to incorporate improved techniques and therapies.

Cenobamate (YKP3089) as adjunctive treatment for uncontrolled focal seizures in a large, phase 3, multicenter, open-label safety study.

OBJECTIVE: During the development of cenobamate, an antiseizure medication (ASM) for focal seizures, three cases of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) occurred. To mitigate the rate of DRESS, a start-low, go-slow approach was studied in an ongoing, open-label, multicenter study. Also examined were long-term safety of cenobamate and a method for managing the pharmacokinetic interaction between cenobamate, a 2C19 inhibitor, and concomitant phenytoin or phenobarbital. METHODS: Patients 18-70 years old with uncontrolled focal seizures taking stable doses of one to three ASMs were enrolled. Cenobamate 12.5 mg/d was initiated and increased at 2-week intervals to 25, 50, 100, 150, and 200 mg/d. Additional biweekly 50 mg/d increases to 400 mg/d were allowed. During titration, patients taking phenytoin or phenobarbital could not have their cenobamate titration rate or other concomitant ASMs adjusted; phenytoin/phenobarbital doses could be decreased by 25%-33%. RESULTS: At data cutoff (median treatment duration = 9 months), 1347 patients were enrolled, of whom 269 (20.0%) discontinued, most commonly due to adverse events (n = 137) and consent withdrawn for reason other than adverse event (n = 74); 1339 patients received ≥1 treatment dose (median modal dose = 200 mg). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were somnolence (28.1%), dizziness (23.6%), and fatigue (16.6%). Serious TEAEs occurred in 108 patients (8.1%), most commonly seizure (n = 14), epilepsy (n = 5), and pneumonia, fall, and dizziness (n = 4 each). No cases of DRESS were identified. In the phenytoin/phenobarbital groups, 43.4% (36/114) and 29.7% (11/51) of patients, respectively, had their doses decreased. At the end of titration, mean plasma phenytoin/phenobarbital levels were generally comparable to baseline. SIGNIFICANCE: No cases of DRESS were identified in 1339 patients exposed to cenobamate using a start-low (12.5 mg/d), go-slow titration approach. Cenobamate was generally well tolerated in the long term, with no new safety issues found. Phenytoin/phenobarbital dose reductions (25%-33%), when needed during cenobamate titration, maintained stable plasma levels.