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.

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.

Effects of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate on serum lipids in patients with partial-onset seizures: Impact of concomitant statins and enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) on lipid metabolism and to determine whether reduced statin exposure during ESL therapy has clinical consequences. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We conducted a post-hoc analysis of pooled data for serum lipids (laboratory values) from three phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of adjunctive ESL therapy (400, 800, or 1200 mg once daily) in patients with treatment-refractory partial-onset seizures. Changes from baseline in serum lipid levels were analyzed according to use of statins and/or enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs (EIAEDs) during the baseline period. KEY FINDINGS: In total, 426 and 1021 placebo- and ESL-treated patients, respectively, were included in the analysis. With regard to the changes from baseline in serum concentrations, there were statistically significant differences between the placebo and ESL 1200 mg QD groups, for both total cholesterol (TC) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), but the effect sizes were small (+4.1 mg/dL and +1.8 mg/dL, respectively). A small but significant difference in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C; -5.0 mg/dL) was observed between the ESL 400 mg QD group and the placebo group. In patients not taking a concomitant EIAED, there were no changes with ESL 400 mg QD, but modest and statistically significant increases in cholesterol fractions (TC, LDL-C and HDL-C) with ESL 800 mg QD (<6 mg/dL) and ESL 1200 mg QD (<10 mg/dL). ESL had no consistent effect on lipids in patients taking a concomitant EIAED. In patients taking statins during baseline, there were no clinically relevant changes in serum lipids during use of ESL, although the subgroups were small. SIGNIFICANCE: These results suggest that ESL does not appear to have clinically significant effects on serum lipids, nor does the pharmacokinetic interaction between ESL and statins have an impact on serum lipid concentrations.

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

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

Eslicarbazepine acetate as adjunctive therapy in patients with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures: Results of a phase III, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures. METHODS: This randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, phase III study was conducted at 173 centers in 19 countries, including the United States and Canada. Eligible patients were aged ≥16 years and had uncontrolled partial-onset seizures despite treatment with 1-2 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). After an 8-week baseline period, patients were randomized to once-daily placebo (n = 226), ESL 800 mg (n = 216), or ESL 1,200 mg (n = 211). Following a 2-week titration period, patients received ESL 800 or 1,200 mg once-daily for 12 weeks. Seizure data were captured and documented using event-entry or daily entry diaries. RESULTS: Standardized seizure frequency (SSF) during the maintenance period (primary end point) was reduced with ESL 1,200 mg (p = 0.004), and there was a trend toward improvement with ESL 800 mg (p = 0.06), compared with placebo. When data for titration and maintenance periods were combined, ESL 800 mg (p = 0.001) and 1,200 mg (p < 0.001) both reduced SSF. There were no statistically significant interactions between treatment response and geographical region (p = 0.38) or diary version (p = 0.76). Responder rate (≥50% reduction in SSF) was significantly higher with ESL 1,200 mg (42.6%, p < 0.001) but not ESL 800 mg (30.5%, p = 0.07) than placebo (23.1%). Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and TEAEs leading to discontinuation increased with ESL dose. The most common TEAEs were dizziness, somnolence, nausea, headache, and diplopia. SIGNIFICANCE: Adjunctive ESL 1,200 mg once-daily was more efficacious than placebo in adult patients with refractory partial-onset seizures. The once-daily 800 mg dose showed a marginal effect on SSF, but did not reach statistical significance. Both doses were well tolerated. Efficacy assessment was not affected by diary format used.

Safety and effectiveness of long-term treatment with diazepam auto-injector administered by caregivers in an outpatient setting for the treatment of acute repetitive seizures.

OBJECTIVE: Part 1 of this phase III study was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of caregiver administered diazepam auto-injector (AI) in subjects with acute repetitive seizures (ARS) and demonstrated that diazepam AI was well-tolerated and significantly more effective than placebo AI in delaying the time to next seizure or rescue. Part 2 of this study, presented herein, was an open-label continuation to assess the long-term safety and effectiveness of diazepam AI for the treatment of ARS. METHODS: Of the 234 subjects randomized in part 1, 161 continued into part 2 and were provided open-label diazepam AI. Effectiveness measures were time to next seizure or rescue, number of subsequent rescues by type (rescue medication, emergency room visit, or other medical care), and number of subsequent seizures during the 12-h follow-up period. Safety data (adverse events and respirations <8/min) were also collected. RESULTS: During the open-label part 2 study, 129 subjects were administered a total of 1,380 diazepam AI treatments (median 4.5; range 1-118), of which 1,071 (77.6%) were effective with no subsequent seizure or rescue during the 12-h follow-up period. Median number of subsequent seizures experienced by subjects was one (range 0-20). Of the 1,380 administrations, 79 (5.7%) required use of rescue medication, 18 (1.3%) required a visit to an emergency room, and 6 (0.4%) required other rescue medical care. In most (75%) of subjects with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. Commonly reported treatment-related TEAEs were injection-site pain (10.9%), injection-site hemorrhage (7%), and injection-site bruising (6.3%). Although three subjects met the predefined respiratory rate threshold, none were considered clinically significant or reported as AEs. SIGNIFICANCE: Long-term treatment with diazepam AI administered by trained caregivers in an outpatient setting to treat ARS is a safe and effective option. A PowerPoint slide summarizing this article is available for download in the Supporting Information section here.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of a diazepam auto-injector administered by caregivers to patients with epilepsy who require intermittent intervention for acute repetitive seizures.

PURPOSE: A diazepam auto­injector (AI) has been developed for intramuscular administration to treat acute repetitive seizures (ARS). The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the diazepam AI when administered by caregivers to control an episode of ARS (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00319501). METHODS: In this phase III, randomized, double­blind, parallel­group, placebo­controlled, multicenter study, subjects with epilepsy on a stable antiepileptic drug regimen who required intermittent medical intervention to control ARS were randomized 1:1 to the placebo AI or the diazepam AI group. Subjects were stratified according to age (2­5, 6­11, ≥12 years). Dose (5, 10, 15, or 20 mg) was based on age and weight. A single dose of study medication was dispensed to be administered by caregivers in an outpatient setting when required. The primary end point was time to next seizure or rescue from 15 min to 12 h postdose. Secondary end points included rescue medication use, number of seizures postdose, caregiver and physician treatment assessments, and safety measures. KEY FINDINGS: Of 234 subjects randomized, 81/110 in the placebo AI group and 82/124 in the diazepam AI group were included in the intent­to­treat analysis. Baseline characteristics were similar for both groups. Time to next seizure or rescue was significantly longer in the diazepam AI group compared with the placebo AI group, with a hazard ratio of 0.55 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34­0.88; p = 0.012) for diazepam AI versus placebo AI, adjusted for age group. The 25th percentile for time to the next seizure or rescue was 1.18 h (95% CI 0.38­2.03) for placebo AI and 2.70 h (95% CI 0.48­11.42) for diazepam AI; the median was 5.9 h for placebo AI and was inestimable for diazepam AI due to the low number of events experienced by subjects in that group. The proportion of subjects using rescue medication postdose was 30% (24/81) placebo AI versus 17% (14/82) diazepam AI (p = 0.066). An event (seizure or rescue) occurred in 55.6% of subjects in the placebo AI group and 35.4% in the diazepam AI group. The number of seizures experienced during the 12­h postdose period was significantly lower for diazepam AI (median 0.0) compared with placebo AI (median 1.0; p = 0.010). Treatment­emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 44% (35/79) of subjects in the placebo AI group and 42% (34/81) in the diazepam AI group. The most common TEAEs reported were injection site pain (15% placebo AI, 17% diazepam AI) and injection site hemorrhage (6% placebo AI, 5% diazepam AI). SIGNIFICANCE: The diazepam AI was significantly more effective than placebo AI at delaying the next seizure or rescue. Secondary efficacy end points were generally supportive of the primary outcome. Diazepam AI administered by trained caregivers was effective for the treatment of ARS and was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to placebo.