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.

Long-term quality of life in patients with focal seizures treated with adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate.

By controlling seizures, anti-seizure medications can improve health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Data from a post-hoc pooled analysis of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) was used to describe HRQOL measures, including overall quality of life, seizure worry, emotional well-being, energy/fatigue, cognitive functioning, medication effects, social function, and overall score over a period of up to one year. Patients who completed a double-blind treatment phase (Part 1) of these trials were eligible to enter the open label extension (OLE; Part 2). Patients who continued into the OLE initiated adjunctive ESL at 800 mg/day for 1 month before investigators could titrate dosages based on efficacy and tolerability. HRQOL was measured at baseline and at the last assessment using the Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory (QOLIE-31) in all patients who entered the 1-year OLE and in patients who completed the 1-year OLE. The mean QOLIE-31 scores and mean change in scores were analyzed using paired t-tests. The percentage of patients with improvements in QOLIE-31 scores beyond the minimally important change (MIC) threshold from baseline to end of 1-year OLE is described. Of 1410 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 1120 patients continued to part 2, and 795 patients completed the OLE. In patients who entered the OLE, mean improvements in scores for seizure worry, overall quality of life, emotional well-being, medication side effects, social functioning, and total score were statistically significant. In patients who completed the OLE, the mean change to final assessment was statistically significantly improved for all QOLIE categories. In patients who entered the OLE with a final assessment, the percentage of patients meeting the MIC for social functioning was the highest (46.9%), followed by medication effects (44.9%), and seizure worry (42.9%). Patients who completed the OLE with a final assessment found a similar rank ordering in QOLIE scale improvements compared with those who entered the OLE with a final assessment. For both sets of patient groups, the least number of subjects met MIC criteria for the energy/fatigue QOLIE category. Treatment with therapeutic doses of adjunctive ESL in patients with focal seizures was associated with improvements in HRQOL for a period of up to one year.

Thirteen years of experience with eslicarbazepine acetate in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland: A safety perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is a once-daily oral antiseizure medication. Its safety and tolerability from clinical trials have been mostly confirmed by real-world data. The main purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the safety profile of ESL in the United Kingdom (UK) and Republic of Ireland (ROI). METHODS: Safety data were obtained from the UK and ROI post-marketing sources (October 2009-April 2022) by the marketing authorization holder. All individual reports were included in the Argus Safety™ database. All adverse events (AEs) were coded using MedDRA® version 24.1. Only valid cases (meeting the minimum pharmacovigilance reporting requirements) were included. RESULTS: During 13 years of ESL marketing, with cumulative estimated exposure of 2 210 395 patients-years, 183 reports were received. A total of 402 AEs were reported for the 155 valid reports. The most common reported AEs (≥6% of total reported), per system organ class (SOC), were: nervous system disorders (23.4%), injury, poisoning, and procedural complications (18.9%), general disorders and administration site conditions (12.9%), psychiatric disorders (12.7%) and gastrointestinal disorders (6.7%). The most frequently reported (≥2% of total reported) AEs were: seizure (4.5%), hyponatremia (4.2%), dizziness (2.7%), rash, fatigue (2.5% each), and somnolence (2.0%). Twenty-six percent of events were classified as serious (including six fatal cases). SIGNIFICANCE: The current analysis supports the known safety profile of ESL, as generally well-tolerated with most AEs being non-serious. The most common AEs were considered either expected according to the disease itself or to the reference safety information. ESL continues to be a relevant medication in the treatment of partial (focal-onset) epilepsy, as also confirmed by the 2022 NICE guidelines.

The safety/tolerability of opicapone when used early in Parkinson's disease patients with levodopa-induced motor fluctuations: A post-hoc analysis of BIPARK-I and II.

Introduction: Post-hoc analyses of the BIPARK-I and II trials previously demonstrated that opicapone (OPC) 50 mg was efficacious over the whole trajectory of motor fluctuation evolution in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and end-of-dose motor fluctuations, with enhanced efficacy in patients who were earlier vs. later in their disease course and levodopa treatment pathway. Complementary post-hoc analyses were performed to evaluate the safety/tolerability of OPC following the same pre-defined segmentation of the wide spectrum of duration of both PD and levodopa therapy, as well as of motor fluctuation history, in this patient population. Materials and methods: Data from matching treatment arms in BIPARK-I and II were combined for the placebo (PLC) and OPC 50 mg groups and exploratory post-hoc analyses were performed to investigate the safety/tolerability of OPC 50 mg and PLC in 22 subgroups of patients who were in "earlier" vs. "later" stages of both their disease course (e.g., duration of PD <6 years vs. ≥6 years) and levodopa treatment pathway (e.g., levodopa treatment duration <4 vs. ≥4 years). Safety/tolerability assessments included evaluation of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: The Safety Set included 522 patients (PLC, n = 257; OPC 50 mg, n = 265). For OPC 50 mg, incidences of TEAEs, related TEAEs, related serious TEAEs, and related TEAEs leading to discontinuation were lower for patients in earlier vs. later stages of their disease course and levodopa treatment pathway in 86.4, 86.4, 63.6, and 68.2% of the 22 pairwise comparisons conducted, respectively (compared with 63.6, 77.3, 18.2, and 45.5%, respectively, in the 22 corresponding PLC comparisons). Conclusion: OPC 50 mg was generally well-tolerated when used to treat patients with PD with end-of-dose fluctuations, with an even more favorable tolerability profile in patients who were earlier, as opposed to later, in their disease course and levodopa treatment pathway, further supporting its use as an early adjunct to levodopa in PD.

Long-term therapeutic effect of eslicarbazepine acetate in children: An open-label extension of a cognition study in children aged 6-16 years.

OBJECTIVE: In Europe, eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is approved as adjunctive therapy for the treatment of focal seizures (FS) in children aged >6 years. In the US, ESL is approved as both monotherapy and adjunctive therapy for the treatment of FS in patients aged ≥4 years. In a phase II study of children aged 6-16 years with FS, ESL had no significant effects on attention or behavioral functioning and decreased seizure frequency during double-blind therapy and a 1-year open-label extension (OLE). This report presents data from an additional 2-year OLE of the phase II study. METHODS: Previous recipients of ESL or placebo were treated with open-label ESL (10-30 mg/kg/day, adjusted for clinical response and/or adverse events [AEs]). Safety was assessed by incidence of treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs). Efficacy endpoints were treatment retention time and change from baseline in Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scale scores. RESULTS: Forty-two patients entered and 31 (73.8%) completed the 2-year OLE. Median treatment retention time was 735 (95% confidence interval 728-741) days. Seven patients (17% of total, 23% of completed) experienced ≥1 TEAE during the 2-year OLE, mostly of mild or moderate intensity. The incidence of serious TEAEs was low (n = 2; 5% of total, 6% of completed) and none were related to ESL. One child was withdrawn because of splenomegaly that was considered possibly related to ESL. The only change from baseline in CGI-S was a 0.5-point reduction in the severity of illness score. All findings were consistent across patient subgroups based on previous double-blind treatment (placebo or ESL) and patient age (6-11 or 12-16 years). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients remained on ESL during the 2-year OLE, and treatment efficacy was maintained. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of ESL, and no new safety signals were identified.

Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of FAAH Inhibitor BIA 10-2474: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study in Healthy Volunteers.

This study evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of BIA 10-2474, a fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) inhibitor, after first administration to healthy male and female participants. Participants (n = 116) were recruited into this phase I, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose and multiple ascending dose (10-day) study. The primary outcome was the safety and tolerability of BIA 10-2474. Secondary outcomes were pharmacokinetics of BIA 10-2474 and pharmacodynamics, considering plasma concentrations of anandamide and three other fatty acid amides (FAAs) and leukocyte FAAH activity. Single oral doses of 0.25-100 mg and repeated oral doses of 2.5-50 mg were evaluated. BIA 10-2474 was well tolerated up to 100 mg as a single dose and up to 20 mg once daily for 10 days. In the cohort receiving repeated administrations of 50 mg, there were central nervous system adverse events in five of six participants, one with fatal outcome, which led to early termination of the study. BIA 10-2474 showed a linear relationship between dose and area under plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) across the entire dose range and reached steady state within 5-6 days of administration, with an accumulation ratio, based on AUC0-24h , of <2 on Day 10. BIA 10-2474 was rapidly absorbed with a mean terminal elimination half-life of 8-10 hours (Day 10). BIA 10-2474 caused reversible, dose-related increases in plasma FAAs. In conclusion, we propose that these data, as well as the additional data generated since the clinical trial was stopped, do not provide a complete mechanistic explanation for the tragic fatality.

The Added Benefit of Opicapone When Used Early in Parkinson's Disease Patients With Levodopa-Induced Motor Fluctuations: A Post-hoc Analysis of BIPARK-I and -II.

Introduction: Opicapone (OPC) was efficacious in reducing OFF-time in two pivotal trials in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and end-of-dose motor fluctuations (BIPARK-I and -II). Post-hoc analyses of these trials evaluated the efficacy of OPC following pre-defined segmentation of the wide spectrum of motor fluctuations in PD. Methods: Data from matching treatment arms in BIPARK-I and -II were combined for the placebo (PLC) and OPC 50-mg groups, and exploratory post-hoc analyses were performed to investigate the efficacy of OPC 50 mg vs. PLC in subgroups of patients who were in "earlier" vs. "later" stages of both their disease course (e.g., duration of PD <6 years vs. ≥6 years) and levodopa treatment pathway (e.g., number of daily levodopa intakes <4 vs. ≥4). Efficacy variables included changes from baseline in absolute OFF-time and total ON-time. Results: The Full Analysis Set included 517 patients (PLC, n = 255; OPC 50 mg, n = 262). OPC 50 mg was significantly more effective than PLC in reducing OFF-time and increasing ON-time in the majority of subgroup analyses (p < 0.05). Moreover, patients in "earlier" stages of both their disease course and levodopa treatment pathway experienced numerically greater efficacy when using OPC 50 mg, in comparison with those in "later" stages. Conclusion: OPC 50 mg was efficacious over the whole trajectory of motor fluctuation evolution in PD patients. There was also a signal for enhanced efficacy in patients who were earlier vs. later in their disease course and levodopa treatment pathway.

Safety of Eslicarbazepine Acetate in Elderly Versus Non-Elderly Patients with Focal Seizures: From Pooled Data of Clinical Studies to 8 Years of Post-Marketing Experience.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of epilepsy increases in elderly patients aged > 65 years, and treatment is challenging because clinical data are limited. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the safety of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in patients aged ≥ 65 years versus non-elderly patients with focal seizures. METHODS: The safety data of seven phase II and III, double-blind, open-label, randomized clinical studies of ESL in adults were pooled. At least possibly related treatmentemergent adverse events (TEAEs) and ESL post-marketing adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were analyzed separately by age categories. RESULTS: The most frequently reported at least possibly related TEAEs in elderly (N = 120) versus non-elderly patients (N = 1863) were dizziness (10.8 vs. 20.3%), somnolence (9.2 vs. 12.6%), and hyponatremia (6.7 vs. 1.5%). Elderly patients presented a higher incidence of serious TEAEs (22.5 vs. 7.6%) and at least possibly related serious TEAEs (6.7 vs. 2.5%), probably because treatment was complicated by comorbidities and comedications. After an estimated cumulative exposure of over 2 million patient-months worldwide and 8 years of post-marketing surveillance, hyponatremia was the most frequently reported ADR (n = 232), accounting for 14.6% and 6.8% of the ADRs reported in elderly (n = 473) and non-elderly patients (n = 2406), respectively. This was followed by ADR/safety information such as drug-dose titration not performed (7.0 vs. 5.4%), product use in unapproved indication (4.9 vs. 1.9%), off-label use (3.4 vs. 2.2%), dizziness (3.4 vs. 3.5%), and seizure (2.1 vs. 5.8%). CONCLUSION: No specific safety issue was identified from the pooled studies for elderly compared with non-elderly patients. After 8 years of post-marketing surveillance, the qualitative safety of ESL remains similar to that observed in the clinical studies.

Comparative analysis of the safety and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate in older (≥60 years) and younger (18-59 years) adults.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), a once-daily oral anti-seizure drug (ASD), in older and younger adult patient populations. METHODS: Two post-hoc pooled data analyses were performed: one from three Phase III studies in patients with focal (partial-onset) seizures who were taking 1-3 concomitant ASDs; the other from five Phase II studies in patients from non-epilepsy populations not taking other ASDs chronically and/or at a clinically-effective anti-seizure dose. The frequencies of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were calculated for the older (≥60 years) and younger (18-59 years) adults separately. RESULTS: In the focal seizures study pool, 4.1 % of patients (58/1431) were aged ≥60 years. The overall frequency of TEAEs was 77.5 % in older ESL-treated patients and 72.6 % in younger ESL-treated patients (p = 0.495). For patients who received placebo, the overall frequency of TEAEs was 50.0 % in the older adults and 57.5 % in the younger adults (p = 0.531). The overall placebo-adjusted frequency of TEAEs was 27.5 % in older adults and 15.1 % in younger adults. The placebo-adjusted frequencies of the TEAEs dizziness, somnolence, headache, nausea, diplopia, blurred vision, and ataxia were ≥5 % higher, and frequencies of vomiting and vertigo were ≥2 % higher in older than younger adults. The overall frequency of TEAEs leading to discontinuation was 15.0 % in older ESL-treated patients and 17.6 % in younger ESL-treated patients (p = 0.647); the frequency increased with increasing ESL dose. For patients who received placebo, the overall frequency of TEAEs leading to discontinuation was 5.6 % in older adults and 6.6 % in younger adults (p = 0.847). In the non-epilepsy study pool, 30.2 % of patients (515/1705) were aged ≥60 years. The overall frequency of TEAEs was 56.9 % in older ESL-treated patients and 58.8 % in younger ESL-treated patients. The placebo-adjusted frequencies were 14.9 % in older and 15.1 % in younger ESL-treated patients. The placebo-adjusted frequencies of the TEAEs nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and vertigo were ≥2 % higher in older adults, whereas somnolence was ≥2 % higher in younger adults. The overall frequency of TEAEs leading to discontinuation was 18.3 % in older ESL-treated patients and 12.1 % in younger ESL-treated patients (p = 0.003); frequencies were not related to ESL dose. For patients who received placebo, the overall frequency of TEAEs leading to discontinuation was 8.0 % in older adults and 5.6 % in younger adults (p = 0.407). CONCLUSION: Analyses of adverse event data support the safety and tolerability of ESL in adults aged ≥60 years. In the limited number of older patients with focal seizures taking ESL plus concomitant ASDs (n = 40), the frequency of TEAEs was generally higher than in younger adults. However, in the non-epilepsy patient group (in which the number of older patients was ten times larger; 427 patients taking ESL without concomitant ASDs), no marked age-related TEAE differences were observed, suggesting that increased ASD load associated with adjunctive therapy may complicate treatment selection in older patients, due to risk of increased adverse events. As is common practice for all ASDs, balancing clinical response and tolerability is needed in this vulnerable group of patients.

Long-term safety and tolerability of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate in children with focal seizures.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate long-term safety and tolerability outcomes in two open-label extension (OLE) studies of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in children with focal seizures. METHODS: Safety data from patients aged 4-17 years in OLEs of Studies 2093-208 and -305 were pooled and analyzed. Studies 208 and 305 were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of adjunctive treatment with ESL in children with focal seizures refractory to treatment with 1-2 antiseizure drugs; patients could continue into uncontrolled OLEs (up to 5 years total duration). The OLEs evaluated the safety and tolerability of ESL (10-30 mg/kg/day; maximum 1200 mg/day). RESULTS: The 1-year OLE and post-1-year OLE safety populations comprised 337 and 177 ESL-treated patients, respectively. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with ESL was 64.1% during the 1-year OLE and 52.5% during the post-1-year OLE. Nasopharyngitis, partial seizures, vomiting, pyrexia, headache, somnolence, and respiratory tract infection were the most frequently reported TEAEs during the 1-year OLE. The overall incidence of serious adverse events (AEs) was 8.9% during the 1-year OLE and 10.2% during the post-1-year OLE. Partial seizures (1.2%) and pneumonia (1.2%) were the most frequently reported serious AEs during the 1-year OLE. The overall incidence of TEAEs leading to discontinuation was 4.2% during the 1-year OLE and 0.6% during the post-1-year OLE. Partial seizures (1.5%) was the most frequently reported TEAE leading to discontinuation during the 1-year OLE. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, long-term treatment with ESL was generally well tolerated in pediatric patients aged 4-17 years with focal seizures. TEAEs were comparable to those observed in adults with no new events of concern.

Efficacy and safety of eslicarbazepine acetate as adjunctive therapy for refractory focal-onset seizures in children: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, phase-III clinical trial.

PURPOSE: This was a phase-III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study aimed to evaluate efficacy and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as adjunctive therapy in pediatric patients with refractory focal-onset seizures (FOS). METHODS: Children (2-18 years old) with FOS, receiving 1-2 antiepileptic drugs, were randomized to ESL or placebo. Treatment was started at 10 mg/kg/day, up-titrated up to 20-30 mg/kg/day, and maintained for 12 weeks, followed by one-year open-label follow-up. Primary efficacy endpoints were relative reduction in standardized seizure frequency (SSF) and proportion of responders (≥50% SSF reduction) from baseline. Safety was evaluated by the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: The intention-to-treat (ITT) set included 134 patients randomized to ESL and 129 to placebo; 89.6% and 91.5%, respectively, completed the trial. An unbalanced number of seizures at baseline were observed between groups. Least square (LS) mean relative change in SSF from baseline was higher in the ESL group (-18.1%) than in placebo (-8.6%). Proportion of responders between ESL and placebo groups was not statistically different. A post hoc analysis showed greater relative reduction in SSF in patients above 6 years old treated with ESL 20 or 30 mg/kg/day compared with placebo; this was significant in patients above 6 years old treated with ESL 30 mg/kg/day (LS mean difference: 31.9%; p = 0.0478). The observed safety profile in children was consistent with that established in adult studies. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive ESL treatment was well-tolerated, but this trial failed to demonstrate that ESL was more effective than placebo in the predefined efficacy endpoints; factors that may have contributed to this outcome, affecting particularly the young age group, include etiological heterogeneity, difficulty in recognizing simple partial seizures, high seizure frequency with risk of imbalance, and underestimation of the efficacious dose range.

Analysis of cutaneous allergic reactions in clinical trials of eslicarbazepine acetate.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate cutaneous allergic reactions in clinical trials of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) for focal seizures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were analyzed from three phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of adjunctive ESL in adults (placebo, n = 426; ESL, n = 1021) and two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (and open-label extensions [OLEs]) of adjunctive ESL in children aged 4-17 years (placebo, n = 160; ESL, n = 202; OLE, n = 337). RESULTS: Adult studies: Rash (ESL 1.9%, placebo 0.9%) and pruritus (ESL 1.2%, placebo 0.9%) were the most frequent rash-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Most rash-related TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. Incidence of rash increased with increasing ESL dose, but was not higher for patients who initiated treatment with higher ESL doses. Pediatric studies: Allergic dermatitis (ESL 3.0%, placebo 0) and rash (controlled studies: ESL 1.0%, placebo 1.3%; OLE periods: ESL ≤1.2%) were the most frequent rash-related TEAEs. There was one case of DRESS in the ESL group. Most rash-related TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity and judged as not related to treatment with ESL. CONCLUSIONS: Serious skin rashes were rare during adult and pediatric clinical trials of ESL. Although the incidence of rash with ESL was low, it is important for patients/caregivers to be made aware of the potential signs and symptoms associated with serious skin rashes.

Safety Profile of Opicapone in the Management of Parkinson's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Opicapone is a catechol O-methyltransferase (COMT) inhibitor indicated for use as adjunct to levodopa therapy in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and motor fluctuations. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the safety and tolerability of adjunct opicapone (25 and 50 mg) in a pooled population of levodopa-treated PD patients who participated in the opicapone Phase-3 clinical program. METHODS: Patient-level data (placebo, opicapone 25 mg and 50 mg) from the BIPARK-1 and BIPARK-2 double-blind and open-label studies were combined. RESULTS: Pooled analyses included 766 patients from the double-blind studies and 848 patients from the open-label studies. In the double-blind studies, 63.3% of opicapone-treated patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) versus 57.2% in the placebo group. The most common TEAEs reported in the opicapone group compared to placebo were dyskinesia, constipation and insomnia. The incidence of serious TEAEs was similar across opicapone and placebo groups (3.5% versus 4.3%, respectively). Overall, 71.3% patients treated with open-label opicapone reported at least one TEAE; most occurred within the first 2 months of the open-label studies, and then decreased thereafter. Throughout the Phase-3 clinical program, there were no serious AEs suggestive of hepatic toxicity, and the incidence of gastrointestinal disorders such as nausea and diarrhea remained low (<2%). There were no relevant changes in laboratory parameters including liver enzymes, vital signs, physical or neurological examinations, or ECG readings. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term use of opicapone once-daily over 1-year at doses of 25 mg or 50 mg was generally safe and well tolerated, supporting its clinical usefulness in the management of PD motor fluctuations.

Safety, Tolerability and Efficacy of Eslicarbazepine Acetate as Adjunctive Therapy in Patients Aged ≥ 65 Years with Focal Seizures.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of epilepsy is high within the first few years of life, stabilizes over the second through fifth decades, and then rises again. Treatment of elderly patients with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is complicated by increased sensitivity to drug effects, altered pharmacokinetics and an increased risk for drug interactions due to polytherapy. On the other hand, the safety and efficacy data of AEDs attained during clinical development programmes are relatively limited for this age group. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, tolerability and efficacy of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as adjunctive therapy in patients aged ≥ 65 years with focal-onset seizures (FOS). METHODS: This was an international, multicentre, open-label, non-controlled, single-arm, post-European approval commitment study with flexible doses of ESL between 400 and 1200 mg/day. Seventy-two elderly patients with at least two FOS in the prior 4 weeks, and treated with one or two AEDs, were enrolled. The study consisted of an 8-week baseline, followed by a 26-week treatment period during which the investigator was allowed to up- or down-titrate the ESL dose, and a 4-week follow-up period. Safety and tolerability were assessed as well as mental sedation, cognitive mental state and suicidal ideation. Efficacy was assessed based on patient diaries regarding the absolute and relative changes in seizure frequency, change in intellectual impairment and quality of life. RESULTS: Overall, 47 (65.3%) patients experienced 152 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). The most frequent were dizziness (12.5%), somnolence (9.7%), fatigue, convulsion and hyponatraemia (8.3% each). All patients that experienced hyponatraemia (6/72) recovered without sequelae. Three patients died during the study (due to cardiac failure, glioblastoma multiforme and ischaemic stroke, all considered unrelated to ESL). Overall, 16 (22.2%) patients discontinued prematurely due to TEAEs. The incidences of clinically significant findings were low for vital signs, ECG, physical and neurological examinations. No TEAEs of hypothyroidism were reported; however, 24 (33.3%) patients presented post-baseline shifts from normal to decreased free T4 levels (not clinically significant). ESL decreased standardized seizure frequency from a mean of 4.8 seizures at baseline to 3.6 seizures at endpoint (p > 0.05); and mean number of days with seizures significantly decreased from 4.1 (baseline) to 2.8 at endpoint (p = 0.0408). CONCLUSION: ESL taken once daily (400-1200 mg) as adjunctive therapy in patients aged ≥ 65 years was found to be safe, well tolerated and efficacious (EudraCT number: 2009-012587-14).

Tolerability of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate according to concomitant lamotrigine or carbamazepine use: A subgroup analysis of three phase III trials in adults with focal (partial-onset) seizures.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the effects of concomitant lamotrigine (LTG) or carbamazepine (CBZ) on the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in patients taking adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) for focal (partial-onset) seizures (FS). METHODS: These post-hoc analyses of data pooled from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of adjunctive ESL (BIA-2093-301, -302 and -304) included adults (≥16 years) with FS refractory to 1-3 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Patients were randomized equally to placebo, ESL 400 mg (Studies 301 and 302 only), 800 mg, or 1200 mg once daily (8-week baseline, 2-week titration, and 12-week maintenance periods). TEAEs, TEAEs leading to discontinuation, and serious AEs (SAEs) were evaluated in patients taking, or not taking, LTG (excluding those taking CBZ or phenytoin [PHT]; i.e., the +LTG and -LTG/-CBZ subgroups), or CBZ (excluding those taking LTG or PHT; i.e., the +CBZ and -LTG/-CBZ subgroups) at baseline. RESULTS: LTG was used concomitantly by 248 patients (+LTG; placebo, n = 81; ESL, n = 167) and CBZ by 613 patients (+CBZ; placebo, n = 172; ESL, n = 441); 361 patients were taking neither LTG nor CBZ (-LTG/-CBZ; placebo, n = 109; ESL, n = 252). The overall incidence of TEAEs with ESL (any dose) was numerically higher for +CBZ (77%) than for +LTG (73%) or -LTG/-CBZ (68%; statistical significance not tested). Among patients taking ESL, dizziness, diplopia, and vomiting were reported more frequently in the +CBZ subgroup (30%, 14%, and 10%, respectively) than in the +LTG (16%, 8%, 5%) or -LTG/-CBZ (11%, 3%, 5%) subgroups. The overall incidence of TEAEs leading to discontinuation with ESL was higher for +CBZ (21%) than for +LTG (13%) or -LTG/-CBZ (15%). Dizziness leading to discontinuation with ESL was reported more frequently in the +CBZ subgroup than in the +LTG or -LTG/-CBZ subgroups (9%, 3%, and 3%, respectively). The overall incidence of SAEs in patients taking ESL was comparable across subgroups (+LTG, 5%; +CBZ, 6%; -LTG/-CBZ, 5%). The results were similar when evaluating placebo-adjusted incidences. CONCLUSION: There was a potential pharmacodynamic interaction between AEDs with a putatively similar mechanism of action, with a seemingly lesser interaction between ESL and LTG versus ESL and CBZ. If combining ESL with LTG or CBZ, clinicians should be aware of the potential risk for an increased incidence of TEAEs typically associated with voltage-gated sodium channel inhibitors (e.g., dizziness, blurred vision, vertigo, diplopia, headache, or vomiting).

Eslicarbazepine acetate exposure in pregnant women with epilepsy.

PURPOSE: Epilepsy is a common neurologic disorder requiring continued treatment during pregnancy. Treatment with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is needed for seizure control, but the risk of adverse events has to be minimized for both mother and foetus. Available data on pregnancy and foetal/postnatal outcomes following eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) exposure via parent is herein presented for the first time. METHODS: ESL's global safety database was reviewed to identify pregnancy cases with exposure to ESL reported up to October 21st, 2017. The EMBASE™ and MEDLINE® databases were searched to identify literature reports of such cases published between May 1st, 2009 and October 21st, 2017. RESULTS: Overall, 91 notifications of pregnancy were identified, of which 79 involved ESL exposure: 28 during clinical trials and 51 from 8-years of post-marketing surveillance. Thirty pregnancies resulted in live birth without congenital anomalies; in 25 pregnancies the outcome was ongoing and 3 was unknown; 18 cases resulted in abortion (10 spontaneous and 8 induced) and congenital anomalies were identified in 5 cases (no clear relationship with ESL was established). ESL was used concomitantly to other AEDs in 11 of the 15 pregnancies for which the outcome was spontaneous abortion and congenital anomaly. Literature review did not yield additional information. CONCLUSIONS: Available data are insufficient to draw conclusions regarding ESL use during pregnancy. Although no particular safety problem was identified, ESL exposure during pregnancy will continue to be monitored and evaluated.

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.

Pooled efficacy and safety of eslicarbazepine acetate as add-on treatment in patients with focal-onset seizures: Data from four double-blind placebo-controlled pivotal phase III clinical studies.

PURPOSE: Pooled evaluation of the key efficacy and safety profile of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) added-on to stable antiepileptic therapy in adults with focal-onset seizures. METHODS: Data from 1703 patients enrolled in four phase III double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies were pooled and analyzed. Following a 2 week titration period, ESL was administered at 400 mg, 800 mg, and 1200 mg once-daily doses for 12 weeks (maintenance period). Pooled efficacy variable was standardized (/4 weeks) seizure frequency (SSF) analyzed over the maintenance period as reduction in absolute and relative SSF and proportion of responders (≥50% reduction in SSF). Pooled safety was analyzed by means of adverse events and clinical laboratory assessments. RESULTS: SSF was significantly reduced with ESL 800 mg (P < 0.0001) and 1200 mg (P < 0.0001) compared to placebo. Median relative reduction in SSF was 33.4% for ESL 800 mg and 37.8% for 1200 mg (placebo: 17.6%), and responder rate was 33.8% and 43.1% (placebo: 22.2%). ESL was more efficacious than placebo regardless of gender, geographical region, epilepsy duration, age at time of diagnosis, seizure type, and type of concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AED). Incidence of adverse events (AEs) and AEs leading to discontinuation was dose dependent. Most common AEs (>10% patients) were dizziness, somnolence, and nausea. The incidence of treatment-emergent AEs (dizziness, somnolence, ataxia, vomiting, and nausea) was lower in patients who began taking ESL 400 mg (followed by 400 mg increments to 800 or 1200 mg) than in those who began taking ESL 600 mg or 800 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily ESL 800 mg and 1200 mg showed consistent results across all efficacy and safety endpoints, independent of study population characteristics and type of concomitant AEDs. Treatment initiated with ESL 400 mg followed by 400 mg increments to 800 or 1200 mg provides optimal balance of efficacy and tolerability.

Use of generic and essential medicines for prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases in Portugal.

BACKGROUND: The successful control of cardiovascular diseases at the lowest possible cost requires the use of the most effective and affordable medicines. We aimed to describe the trends in the ambulatory use of medicines for prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases [Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical classification system (ATC): C and B01A] in Portugal, between 2004 and 2012, and to estimate the potential for expenditure reduction through changes in patterns of use. METHODS: We analysed sell-out data, expressed as defined daily doses (DDD) and pharmacy retail price (€), from a nationwide database. We estimated potential reduction in expenditures through the increase, up to 90% of the volume of DDD, in the use of generic and essential medicines; the latter were defined according to guidelines from Portugal and another European country. RESULTS: Overall consumption increased by approximately 50% from 2004 to 2012, reaching nearly 2400 million DDD, whereas expenditure decreased to 753 million € (-31.3% since 2006). Use of generics and essential medicines increased, representing 43.6 and 39.9% of DDD consumption in 2012, respectively. The 40 most used groups of medicines in 2012 accounted for just over 80% of overall consumption; among these, increase in use of generics and essential medicines would have contributed to a saving of 275 million €. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in patterns of consumption of medicines towards a more frequent use of generics, a preferential use of essential medicines and a more rational use of fixed-dose combinations may contribute to a more efficient use of health resources.