Long-term effects of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate in adult Asian patients with refractory focal seizures: Post hoc analysis of a phase III trial.

A post hoc analysis of data from Asian patients included in the study BIA-2093-304 was conducted to evaluate the long-term safety/tolerability and efficacy of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in adult Asian patients with refractory focal seizures. Part I was a randomized controlled trial, in which patients received ESL (800 or 1200 mg once daily [QD]) or placebo, assessed over a 12-week maintenance period. Patients completing Part I could enter two open-label extension periods (Part II, 1 year; Part III, ≥2 years), during which all received ESL (400-1600 mg QD). Safety/tolerability was assessed by evaluating treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Efficacy assessments included responder and seizure freedom rates. The safety population included 125, 92, and 23 Asian patients in Parts I, II, and III, respectively. Incidence of ESL-related TEAEs was 61.3%, 45.7%, and 17.4% during Parts I, II, and III, respectively. ESL-related TEAEs (most commonly, dizziness, somnolence, and headache) were consistent with ESL's known safety profile. During Part I, responder rates were higher with ESL 800 (41.7%) and 1200 mg QD (44.4%) versus placebo (32.6%), although not statistically significant. Seizure freedom rates with ESL 800 (5.5%) and 1200 mg QD (11.1%) were also higher versus placebo (0%) (p < 0.05 for ESL 1200 mg QD versus placebo). At the end of Part II, responder and seizure freedom rates were 60.3% and 14.7%, respectively. In summary, adult Asian patients with refractory focal seizures were responsive to treatment with ESL as adjunctive therapy and generally showed treatment tolerance well for up to 3 years. No new/unexpected safety findings were observed.

Overnight switch from carbamazepine to eslicarbazepine in a real-life clinical scenario: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Carbamazepine (CBZ) is a first-choice anti-seizure medication (ASM) whose efficacy is often invalidated by adverse effects (AEs). Eslicarbazepine (ESL) is a structural derivative of CBZ with better pharmacokinetic/tolerability profiles. We describe our experience of the overnight CBZ to ESL switch in people with epilepsy (PwE) to improve seizure control, AEs, and ASMs adherence. METHODS: We retrospectively included 19 PwE (12 females, 53 ± 21 years old) who underwent CBZ to ESL overnight switch due to single/multiple issues: poor efficacy (pEff, N = 8, 42%), tolerability (pToll, N = 11, 58%), adherence (pAdh, N = 2, 10%). 9/19 (47%) had psychiatric comorbidities. Clinical variables, seizure frequency, and AEs were recorded at switch time (T0) after 3.5 ± 3 (T1) and 6.5 ± 1.5 months (T2). RESULTS: At T1, in pEff group, 1/8 (13%) was seizure free, 2/8 (25%) were responders (> 50% seizure reduction), 2/8 (25%) had no seizure changes, 3/8 (37%) had seizure worsening; the latter were those with the most severe epilepsy and encephalopathy. In pToll group, all PwE experienced AEs disappearance/amelioration. In pAdh group, all PwE reported adherence amelioration. Four dropouts. At T2, no changes were recorded within groups, while in the whole sample, 6/15 (40%) were responders, and 4/15 (27%) were seizure-free. No one complained of Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation psychiatric worsening, while 6/19 (32%) experienced mood/behavior benefits. CONCLUSIONS: CBZ to ESL overnight switch offers an opportunity to improve efficacy, tolerability, adherence, and psychiatric symptoms.

Time to sustained responder status in patients with focal seizures treated with adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate.

Rapid and sustained clinical responses are critical in improving long-term outcomes in epilepsy. While a 50 % reduction from baseline in standardized seizure frequency (SSF) is often cited as a measure of clinically meaningful efficacy, sustained response (SR) is an alternative method that allows the assessment of onset and durability of the response. Time to sustained response in SSF of ≥ 50 %, ≥ 75 %, ≥ 90 %, and 100 % was assessed for pooled data from 3 similar randomized clinical trials of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL). Patients with focal seizures on stable doses of 1-2 antiseizure medications were randomized to placebo, ESL 800 mg/day, or ESL 1200 mg/day. SR50, SR75, SR90, and SR100 were defined as a ≥ 50 %, ≥ 75 %, ≥ 90 %, and 100 % reduction, respectively, in SSF compared to baseline occurring anytime during the 12-week maintenance period, sustained through the end of the maintenance period. Safety signals were assessed for patients with SR50 onset within the first 2 weeks of the maintenance period (early responders) and any point following the first 2 weeks (later responders). A total of 1221 patients were included in this analysis. SR50 was achieved as early as Day 1 (placebo, 4.7 %; ESL 800 mg/day, 8.8 %; ESL 1200 mg/day, 10.4 %). After 84 days, SR50 was achieved by 32.1 % of the placebo group, 46.9 % of the ESL 800 mg/day group (p = 0.0002 vs placebo), and 53.7 % of the ESL 1200 mg/day group (p < 0.0001 vs placebo). Both ESL groups demonstrated earlier SR50 onset compared with placebo (p < 0.0001). Time to SR50 onset was not statistically different between the 800 and 1200 mg/day ESL dose groups. SR75 (p = 0.0001), SR90 (p = 0.0019), and SR100 (p = 0.0014) were achieved significantly earlier in the ESL 1200 mg/day groups vs placebo. SR75 was achieved significantly earlier in the ESL 800 mg/day group vs placebo (p = 0.0188), while achievements of SR90 (p = 0.0525) and SR100 (p = 0.0540) trended toward earlier occurrence. A greater proportion of patients in the ESL groups compared to the placebo group achieved an SR50 during the maintenance period, and those patients in the ESL groups also achieved SR50 and SR75 sooner than placebo treated patients. Additionally, patients treated with the higher ESL dose achieved SR90 and SR100 sooner than those treated with placebo.

Potential efficacy and safety of eslicarbazepine acetate oral loading in patients with epilepsy.

Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is a new antiseizure medication (ASM) approved as an adjunctive therapy or monotherapy for focal onset seizures. We performed this study to explore the potential efficacy and safety of ESL oral loading in selected patients with epilepsy. Thirty adult patients with status epilepticus or acute repetitive seizures were enrolled, and ESL was administered at a single loading dosage of 30 mg/kg. Plasma levels of an active metabolite of ESL, monohydroxy derivative (MHD), were measured at 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 h after ESL oral loading. Two thirds of the patients reached a therapeutic level of MHD 2 h after ESL loading, and most of the patients achieved a therapeutic range within 12 h after loading. Plasma MHD levels did not rise above the supratherapeutic level in any patient throughout the study. The reported adverse effects included one patient with gaze-evoked nystagmus and another patient with a rash. No serious adverse events leading to drug discontinuation occurred. There was no discernible difference in sodium levels before and after ESL oral loading. Our study findings suggest that ESL oral loading could be a useful therapeutic option for patients with epilepsy who need rapid elevations in the therapeutic levels of ASMs.

In vitro effects of eslicarbazepine (S-licarbazepine) as a potential precision therapy on SCN8A variants causing neuropsychiatric disorders.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Variants in SCN8A, the NaV 1.6 channel's coding gene, are characterized by a variety of symptoms, including intractable epileptic seizures, psychomotor delay, progressive cognitive decline, autistic features, ataxia or dystonia. Standard anticonvulsant treatment has a limited impact on the course of disease. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: We investigated the therapeutic potential of eslicarbazepine (S-licarbazepine; S-lic), an enhancer of slow inactivation of voltage gated sodium channels, on two variants with biophysical and neuronal gain-of-function (G1475R and M1760I) and one variant with biophysical gain-of-function but neuronal loss-of-function (A1622D) in neuroblastoma cells and in murine primary hippocampal neuron cultures. These three variants cover the broad spectrum of NaV 1.6-associated disease and are linked to representative phenotypes of mild to moderate epilepsy (G1475R), developmental and epileptic encephalopathy (M1760I) and intellectual disability without epilepsy (A1622D). KEY RESULTS: Similar to known effects on NaV 1.6 wildtype channels, S-lic predominantly enhances slow inactivation on all tested variants, irrespective of their particular biophysical mechanisms. Beyond that, S-lic exhibits variant-specific effects including a partial reversal of pathologically slowed fast inactivation dynamics (A1622D and M1760I) and a trend to reduce enhanced persistent Na+ current by A1622D variant channels. Furthermore, our data in primary transfected neurons reveal that not only variant-associated hyperexcitability (M1760I and G1475R) but also hypoexcitability (A1622D) can be modulated by S-lic. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: S-lic has not only substance-specific effects but also variant-specific effects. Personalized treatment regimens optimized to achieve such variant-specific pharmacological modulation may help to reduce adverse side effects and improve the overall therapeutic outcome of SCN8A-related disease.

Third-Generation Antiseizure Medications for Adjunctive Treatment of Focal-Onset Seizures in Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Brivaracetam (BRV), cenobamate (CNB), eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), lacosamide (LCM) and perampanel (PER) are antiseizure medications (ASMs) approved for adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures. So far, no randomised controlled trial directly compared the efficacy and safety of these drugs. OBJECTIVE: We estimated the comparative efficacy and safety of these ASMs for the treatment of focal-onset seizures in adults with epilepsy using a network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: We systematically searched (June week 4, 2021) MEDLINE (accessed by PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ). There were no date limitations or language restrictions. Randomised, double-blinded, controlled, parallel-group, add-on studies that compared oral BRV, CNB, ESL, LCM, and PER versus any comparator over maintenance periods of at least 12 weeks and included adult patients with focal seizures uncontrolled by concomitant ASMs were identified. The efficacy outcomes were the proportions of patients with ≥ 50% and 100% reduction in baseline seizure frequency during the maintenance period. The tolerability outcomes were the proportions of participants who experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and experienced at least one TEAE leading to discontinuation. Effect sizes were estimated by network meta-analyses within a frequentist framework. The hierarchy of competing interventions was established using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). RESULTS: Sixteen trials (BRV: n = 3, CNB: n = 1, ESL: n = 4, LCM: n = 4, PER: n = 4) were included, overall enrolling 4507 patients randomised to add-on active treatments (BRV = 803, CNB = 221, ESL =9 90, LCM = 1104, and PER = 1389) and 2246 to add-on placebo. Cenobamate was associated with a higher rate of ≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction than BRV [odds ratio (OR) 2.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-3.66], ESL (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.07-3.48), LCM (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.04-3.32), and PER (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.16-3.70). There was a not statistically significant trend favouring CNB over ESL, LCM and PER for the seizure freedom outcome. Brivaracetam (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.86) and LCM (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40-0.88) were associated with a lower proportion of participants experiencing TEAEs compared to ESL, and patients treated with PER were associated with a higher risk to experience at least one TEAE (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.02-1.96) than BRV. According to SUCRA, CNB had the greatest likelihood of being the best option for the ≥ 50% and 100% seizure frequency reduction, and BRV and LCM had the highest probabilities of being the best-tolerated treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Cenobamate ranked best for efficacy, and BRV and LCM were best tolerated over the other comparators. Although NMAs cannot replace direct comparisons, they may support physicians in clinical decision making.

Comparative economic outcomes in patients with focal seizures initiating eslicarbazepine acetate versus brivaracetam as their first adjunctive ASD.

AIMS: To study the association between initiation of first adjunctive therapy with eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) vs. brivaracetam (BRV) on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and charges among patients with treated focal seizures (FS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Symphony Health's Integrated Dataverse (IDV) claims data (1 April 2015 to 30 June 2018) were used to identify two cohorts as first adjunctive therapy with ESL or BRV following a generic anti-seizure drug (ASD). The index date was the earliest claim for a new ESL or BRV prescription. Key inclusion criteria were only 1 generic ASD in the 12 months before the index date; ≥1 medical claim with an FS diagnosis. Unit of analysis was the 90-day person-time-block. Changes in HCRU and charges were assessed using a difference-in-differences framework. Both unadjusted and adjusted analyses were performed. The adjusted model utilized person-specific fixed effects and propensity score-based weighting to control for differences in baseline covariates. Bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for charge outcomes. RESULTS: 208 and 137 patients initiated first adjunctive therapy with ESL (43.7 years, 51.9% female) or BRV (39.3 years, 51.8% female). Patients in the ESL cohort had numerically larger reductions in all-cause and FS-related inpatient hospitalizations and outpatient visits and FS-related emergency department visits. Compared to patients initiating BRV, patients treated with ESL had significantly larger reductions in total charges (-$3,446, CI: -$13,716, -$425), all-cause (-$3,166, CI: -$13,991, -$323) and FS-related (-$2,969, CI: -$21,547, -$842) medical charges, all-cause (-$3,397, CI: -$15,676, -$818) and FS-related (-$2,863, CI: -$19,707, -$787) outpatient charges, and non-ASD-related prescription charges (-$420, CI: -$1,058, -$78). LIMITATIONS: Claims may be missing, or miscoded; outcomes may be influenced by variables not accounted for in the analysis; only information on submitted charges was included. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with FS, initiation of first adjunctive therapy with ESL was associated with significantly larger reductions in medical and non-ASD-related prescriptions charges compared to BRV.

Eslicarbazepine acetate add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a review first published in 2011, and last updated in 2017. Most people with epilepsy have a good prognosis, but up to 30% of people continue to have seizures despite several regimens of antiepileptic drugs. In this review, we summarized the current evidence regarding eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ESL when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the following databases on 10 September 2020: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid). CRS Web includes randomized or quasi-randomized, controlled trials from Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. There were no language restrictions. We reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted the manufacturers of ESL and experts in the field for information about any unpublished or ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized placebo-controlled double-blind add-on trials of ESL in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcomes investigated included 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal, adverse effects and drug interactions. Primary analyses were by intention to treat (ITT). The dose-response relationship was evaluated in regression models. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials (2185 participants, aged 2 to 77 years), which were at low or unclear risk of bias apart from a high risk of attrition bias; all studies were funded by the pharmaceutical company, BIAL. The overall risk ratio (RR) for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 1.83). For adults, the RR was 1.71 (95% CI 1.42 to 2.05; 5 studies, 1799 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); for children aged six to 18 years, the RR was 1.35 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.87; 2 studies, 322 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dose regression analysis showed evidence that ESL reduced seizure frequency with an increase in efficacy with increasing doses of ESL. ESL was associated with seizure freedom (RR 3.16, 95% CI 1.73 to 5.78; 6 studies, 1922 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants were more likely to have ESL withdrawn for adverse effects (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.66 to 4.46; 7 studies, 2185 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but not for any reason (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.70; 7 studies, 2185 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The following adverse effects were associated with ESL: dizziness (RR 2.77, 99% CI 1.85 to 4.15); nausea (RR 2.55, 99% CI 1.39 to 4.67); somnolence (RR 1.75, 99% CI 1.18 to 2.61); diplopia (RR 4.07, 99% CI 1.86 to 8.89); and vomiting (RR 2.37, 99% CI 1.19 to 4.74). Overall, the certainty of the evidence was moderate due to a high discontinuation rate in studies of adults. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ESL reduces seizure frequency when used as an add-on treatment for adults with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. The trials included in this review were of short-term duration. In addition, this update found that ESL may reduce seizure frequency in children from 6 to 18 years of age; however the results are inconclusive.

Predictors of seizure freedom, response and retention after 12 months of treatment with eslicarbazepine acetate: A post-hoc analysis of the Euro-Esli study.

Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is a once-daily antiseizure medication (ASM) that is approved in Europe and the USA for the treatment of focal-onset seizures. The Euro-Esli study, which included over 2000 patients, investigated the real-world effectiveness, safety and tolerability of ESL when used in everyday clinical practice in Europe. This post-hoc analysis of Euro-Esli employed univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses to investigate the relationship between demographic and baseline characteristics (including epilepsy- and treatment-related factors) and the likelihood of seizure freedom, response and retention in adult patients with focal seizures after 12 months of ESL treatment in the real-world setting. Multivariate analysis revealed that the factors associated with seizure freedom and response at 12 months (N = 1054) were generally those characterising patients who were relatively early in their disease course and/or less refractory to treatment, such as older age at onset of epilepsy, absence of seizures at baseline and lower number of concomitant ASMs at baseline. Although it was not possible to construct a multivariate model to predict retention on ESL treatment at 12 months, when the univariate regression model was adjusted for age and epilepsy duration, the factors found to be significantly associated with retention at 12 months (N = 1559) comprised shorter duration of epilepsy, absence of any seizures at baseline, lower baseline seizure frequency (<5 vs. ≥ 5 seizures/month), lower number of previous ASMs, lower number of concomitant ASMs, and the absence of concomitant use of lamotrigine at baseline. These findings therefore identify baseline characteristics that are predictive of the effectiveness of ESL treatment in clinical practice, which may help clinicians choose appropriate ASM therapy for patients.

[Alzemon: a prospective follow-up study of eslicarbazepine acetate monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy]. / Alzemon: estudio de seguimiento prospectivo del acetato de eslicarbacepina en monoterapia en pacientes con epilepsia de diagnóstico reciente.

INTRODUCTION: Eslicarbazepine acetate is a novel sodium channel blocker for use in the treatment of focal onset seizures. Prospective studies on its effectiveness in monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed partial epilepsy in routine clinical practice are scarce. AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of eslicarbazepine as initial monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed partial epilepsy in routine clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, multicentre, post-authorisation study. Patients with newly diagnosed partial epilepsy aged 18 years or older without previous treatment were included. The efficacy variables were: percentage of seizure-free patients, responders and reduction in monthly frequency of seizures. The safety variables analyse the 12-month retention rate and the occurrence of adverse effects. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were included. The retention rate was 77.4%. At the end of the observation period, 83% of patients were seizure-free and 92.5% had reduced their baseline frequency by 50% or more. In addition, 68% of the patients reported some adverse effect and 7.5% of them dropped out of the study for this reason. The effectiveness analysis of the subgroup of patients aged 65 years or more showed no differences with respect to the overall population. CONCLUSION: Eslicarbazepine monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed partial epilepsy, both in the general population and in the population over 65 years old, is effective and safe in routine clinical practice.

TITLE: Alzemon: estudio de seguimiento prospectivo del acetato de eslicarbacepina en monoterapia en pacientes con epilepsia de diagnóstico reciente.Introducción. El acetato de eslicarbacepina es un nuevo bloqueante de los canales de sodio en el tratamiento de las crisis de inicio focal. Los estudios prospectivos sobre su efectividad en monoterapia en pacientes con epilepsia parcial de reciente diagnóstico en la práctica clínica habitual son escasos. Objetivo. Evaluar la efectividad de la eslicarbacepina en monoterapia de inicio en pacientes con epilepsia parcial de reciente diagnóstico en la práctica clínica habitual. Pacientes y métodos. Estudio postautorización prospectivo y multicéntrico. Se incluyó a pacientes con epilepsia parcial de reciente diagnóstico de 18 años o más sin tratamiento previo. Las variables de eficacia fueron: porcentaje de pacientes libres de crisis, respondedores y reducción en la frecuencia mensual de crisis. Las variables de seguridad analizan la tasa de retención a los 12 meses y la aparición de efectos adversos. Resultados. Se incluyó a 53 pacientes. La tasa de retención fue del 77,4%. Al final del período de observación, el 83% de los pacientes se encontraba libre de crisis y el 92,5% había reducido en un 50% o más su frecuencia basal. El 68% de los pacientes notificó algún efecto adverso y el 7,5% de ellos abandonó el estudio por este motivo. El análisis de efectividad del subgrupo de 65 años o más no mostró diferencias respecto a la población global. Conclusión. La eslicarbacepina en monoterapia en pacientes con epilepsia parcial de reciente diagnóstico, tanto en la población general como en la población de más de 65 años, es eficaz y segura en la práctica clínica habitual.

Therapeutic and prognostic implications of NOTCH and MAPK signaling in bladder cancer.

Signaling pathways that drive bladder cancer (BC) progression may be promising and specific targets for systemic therapy. Here, we investigated the clinical significance and targetability of NOTCH and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling for this aggressive malignancy. We assessed NOTCH1 and MAPK activity in 222 stage III and IV BC specimens of patients that had undergone radical cystectomy, and tested for clinical associations including cancer-specific and overall survival. We examined therapeutic effects of NOTCH and MAPK repression in a murine xenograft model of human bladder cancer cells and evaluated tumor growth and tumor cell plasticity. In BC, NOTCH1 and MAPK signaling marked two distinct tumor cell subpopulations. The combination of high NOTCH1 and high MAPK activity indicated poor cancer-specific and overall survival in univariate and multivariate analyses. Inhibition of NOTCH and MAPK in BC xenografts in vivo depleted targeted tumor cell subpopulations and revealed strong plasticity in signaling pathway activity. Combinatorial inhibition of NOTCH and MAPK signaling most strongly suppressed tumor growth. Our findings indicate that tumor cell subpopulations with high NOTCH and MAPK activity both contribute to tumor progression. Furthermore, we propose a new concept for BC therapy, which advocates specific and simultaneous targeting of these different tumor cell subpopulations through combined NOTCH and MAPK inhibition.

Bloqueadores de los canales de sodio dependientes de voltaje: nuevas perspectivas en el tratamiento del dolor neuropático / Voltage-gated sodium channel blockers: New perspectives in the treatment of neuropathic pain

No disponible

Eslicarbazepine in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy: a single-center experience.

PURPOSE: Brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE) is frequent in patients affected with glioma. Most patients have refractory seizures and require polytherapy. Promising treatment options derive from the development of novel anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs), like Eslicarbazepine (ESL), whose role in BTRE has not yet been explored. Our aim was to report a retrospective cohort of patients affected by BTRE treated with ESL as an adjunctive therapy and to discuss the potential role of this third-generation AED in this clinical context. METHODS: We analyzed a single-center, retrospectively collected cohort of patients affected by glioma and BTRE, treated with ESL as an adjunctive therapy. RESULTS: Analysis included 5 males and 3 females with age ranging from 37 to 75 years (mean = 55.5). Mean baseline Karnofsky performance status was 87.5 (range 70-100). Patients were affected by diffuse astrocytoma (3), low grade oligodendroglioma (2), anaplastic glioma (2) and glioblastoma (1). Mean follow-up was 19 months (range 6-59). Mean dose at the last follow-up was 950 mg daily. Mean weekly seizures in the month before initiation of ESL numbered 17.6 (range 0.25-50). At the last follow-up, mean weekly seizures were 2.2 (range 0-10), i.e. significantly lower than baseline (p = 0.03). The mean reduction of seizures achieved after introduction of ESL was 65%, with 6/8 patients (75%) showing a reduction of more than 50%. Two patients (25%) were seizure free. CONCLUSIONS: This single-center experience suggests that ESL may be a well-tolerated, efficacious option as an add-on drug in the treatment of BTRE.

Dibenzazepine combats acute liver injury in rats via amendments of Notch signaling and activation of autophagy.

Paracetamol is a commonly used over-the-counter analgesic and antipyretic drug. Nevertheless, an overdose of paracetamol leads to hepatic necrosis that can be lethal. This study aimed to assess the potential hepatoprotective effects of dibenzazepine, a Notch inhibitor, against acute liver injury in rats via interfering with oxidative stress, inflammation, apoptosis, autophagy, and Notch signaling. Silymarin (200 mg/kg, p.o.) or dibenzazepine (2 mg/kg, i.p.) were administered to rats for 5 days before a single hepatotoxic dose of paracetamol (800 mg/kg, i.p.). Pretreatment with silymarin and dibenzazepine significantly mitigated oxidative stress, inflammatory and apoptotic markers induced by paracetamol hepatotoxicity where dibenzazepine showed greater repression of inflammation. Furthermore, dibenzazepine was found to be significantly more efficacious than silymarin in inhibiting Notch signaling as represented by expression of Notch-1 and Hes-1. A significantly greater response was also demonstrated with dibenzazepine pretreatment with regard to the expression of autophagic proteins, Beclin-1 and LC-3. The aforementioned biochemical results were confirmed by histopathological examination. Autophagy and Notch signaling seem to play a significant role in protection provided by dibenzazepine for paracetamol-induced hepatotoxicity in rats, which could explain its superior results relative to silymarin. Graphical abstract.

Eslicarbazepine acetate response in intellectual disability population versus general population.

BACKGROUND: A quarter of people with intellectual disability (ID) have epilepsy, compared to approximately one in a hundred across the general population. Evidence for the safe and effective prescribing of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for those with ID is, however, limited. AIMS OF STUDY: This study seeks to strengthen the research evidence around Eslicarbazepine Acetate (ESL), a new AED, by comparing response of individuals with ID to those from the general population who do not have ID. METHODS: A single data set was created through retrospective data collection from English and Welsh NHS Trusts. The UK-based Epilepsy Database Research Register (Ep-ID) data collection and analysis method were used. RESULTS: Data were collected for 93 people (36 ID and 57 'no ID'). Seizure improvement of '>50%' was higher at 12 months for 'no ID' participants (56%), compared to ID participants (35%). Retention rates were slightly higher for those with ID (56% compared to 53%). Neither difference was significant. CONCLUSIONS: Tolerance and Efficacy for ID and 'no ID' people in our data set were similar. Seizure improvement and retention rates were slightly lower than that found in other European data sets, but findings strengthen the evidence for the use of ESL in the ID population.

Acetato de eslicarbazepina en neuralgia del trigémino / Eslicarbazepine acetate for trigeminal neuralgia

No disponible

[The role of eslicarbazepine acetate in the treatment of focal-onset epilepsy in pediatric age: practical issues]. / Papel del acetato de eslicarbazepina en el tratamiento de la epilepsia de origen focal en la edad pediátrica: consideraciones prácticas.

Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is a third-generation antiepileptic drug (AED) of the carboxamide family and structurally related to carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine, although it has pharmacological differences that may have relevant implications of clinical utility. Since 2009 in Europe, ESL has been indicated for use in adults as adjuvant therapy in patients with partial-onset seizures (currently called focal-onset), with or without secondary generalization (with or without evolution to bilateral tonic-clonic, in current terminology). In 2017, the indication for adjunctive therapy of patients with partial-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization was extended to its use as monotherapy in adults and as adjuvant therapy in adolescents and children older than 6 years. A group of experts carried out this review aimed at the aspects of most interest in the clinical practice of the use of ESL in the pediatric population, including differential aspects from other AEDs. Aspects such as efficacy, dosage, clinical response depending on age, tolerability and its management, neurocognitive and behavioral profile, need for monitoring of any analytical parameter, role of plasma level monitoring, possible added value of the once-daily administration, clinical situations in which the addition of ESL would be recommended, use with other sodium channel blockers, how to switch from carbamazepine/oxcarbazepine, potential interactions with other AEDs, potential interactions with drugs other than AEDs, and some practical issues that require additional research.

TITLE: Papel del acetato de eslicarbazepina en el tratamiento de la epilepsia de origen focal en la edad pediátrica: consideraciones prácticas.El acetato de eslicarbazepina (ESL) es un fármaco antiepiléptico (FAE) de tercera generación de la familia de las carboxamidas y estructuralmente relacionado con la carbamazepina y la oxcarbazepina, aunque presenta diferencias farmacológicas que pueden tener implicaciones de utilidad clínica relevantes. Desde 2009, en Europa, el ESL está indicado para su utilización en adultos como terapia adyuvante en pacientes con crisis de inicio parcial (actualmente denominada de inicio focal), con o sin generalización secundaria (con o sin evolución a tonicoclónica bilateral, en terminología actual). En 2017, la indicación como tratamiento adyuvante de los pacientes con crisis de inicio parcial con o sin generalización secundaria se amplió a su utilización en monoterapia en adultos y en combinación en adolescentes y niños mayores de 6 años. Un grupo de expertos realizó esta revisión orientada a la práctica clínica del uso de ESL en población pediátrica, incluyendo aquellos puntos diferenciales respecto a otros FAE. Se han incluido aspectos como la eficacia, dosificación, respuesta clínica en función de la edad, tolerabilidad y su manejo, perfil neurocognitivo y conductual, necesidad de control de algún parámetro analítico, papel de la monitorización de los niveles plasmáticos, posible valor añadido de la administración única, situaciones clínicas en las que sería recomendable la adición de ESL, utilización con otros bloqueantes de los canales del sodio, realización del cambio desde carbamazepina/oxcarbazepina, potenciales interacciones con otros FAE, potenciales interacciones con otros fármacos distintos de los FAE, y algunas consideraciones prácticas que requieren una investigación adicional.