Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate in patients with focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures.

OBJECTIVE: To report the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) treatment in reducing focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS). METHODS: Data were pooled from 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of adjunctive ESL in patients with focal seizures. Patients treated with 800 or 1200 mg/day ESL and who experienced ≥ 1 FBTCS during baseline were included. Efficacy was measured using FBTCS standardized seizure frequency (SSF), responder rates (≥50%, ≥75%, and 100%), and time to first FBTCS. Adverse events (AEs) were tabulated for each subgroup. RESULTS: Of the original 1447 patients, 438 patients in the safety population were included with ≥ 1 FBTCS at baseline (efficacy population, n = 429). Patients with ≥ 2 FBTCS (safety, n = 354; efficacy, n = 346) and ≥ 3 FBTCS (safety, n = 294; efficacy, n = 288) at baseline were also analyzed. The 1200 mg/day ESL group experienced lower least squares mean SSF vs placebo in patients with ≥ 1 baseline FBTCS (P = 0.0395) and ≥ 3 baseline FBTCS (P = 0.0091). The 50% responder rates improved for 1200 mg/day ESL vs placebo (≥1 FBTCS, P = 0.005; ≥2 FBTCS, P = 0.0063; ≥3 FBTCS, P = 0.0016). The 75% responder rates improved with 1200 mg/day ESL vs placebo (≥1 FBTCS, P = 0.0315; ≥2 FBTCS, P = 0.0215; ≥3 FBTCS, P = 0.0099), and with 800 mg/day ESL for ≥ 2 FBTCS at baseline (P = 0.0486). The 100% responder rate was higher in patients treated with 1200 mg/day ESL (not significant). Time to first FBTCS was longer with both 800 (P = 0.0008) and 1200 mg/day (P = 0.0020) ESL vs placebo for the ≥ 1 FBTCS subgroup, and with 1200 mg/day ESL for ≥ 2 FBTCS (P = 0.0060) and ≥ 3 FBTCS (P = 0.0152) subgroups. Overall, AEs occurred at similar rates across subgroups, and were lower than the original RCTs. CONCLUSION: Adjunctive ESL produced a robust response in patients with FBTCS, a seizure type associated with SUDEP and high injury rates. Adjunctive ESL was well tolerated in patients who experienced FBTCS.

Eslicarbazepine-induced hyponatremia: A retrospective single-center real clinical practice study.

Hyponatremia is a typical side effect of antiseizure drugs from the dibenzazepine family. The study investigated the prevalence of hyponatremia in patients with epilepsy who were treated with eslicarbazepine. We aimed to determine the prevalence of hyponatremia, reveal the factors leading to the discontinuation of treatment, and identify possible risk factors for the development of hyponatremia including the dose dependency. The medical records of 164 patients with epilepsy taking eslicarbazepine in our center were analyzed. The overall prevalence of hyponatremia was 30.5%. The prevalence of mild hyponatremia, seen in 14%-20% of patients, was not dose dependent. The prevalence of moderate and severe hyponatremia was significantly dose dependent. The severity of hyponatremia was significantly dose dependent. Severe hyponatremia was found in 6.1% of patients. Hyponatremia was asymptomatic in the majority of cases, and in 48% did not require any management. Hyponatremia was the reason for discontinuation in 6.2% of patients. The major risk factor for developing hyponatremia was older age. The study shows that eslicarbazepine-induced hyponatremia is usually mild and asymptomatic. It usually does not require any management and seldom leads to treatment discontinuation. Hyponatremia is dose dependent. Another major risk for developing hyponatremia (besides dose) is older age.

A Prospective Longitudinal Study of the Effects of Eslicarbazepine Acetate Treatment on Bone Density and Metabolism in Patients with Focal-Onset Epilepsy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is a third-generation anti-seizure medication for patients with focal-onset epilepsy. There are known short-term impacts of classic enzyme-inducing drugs on bone health. For oxcarbazepine, which like ESL is a less potent inducer of cytochrome P450 (CYP450) than carbamazepine, some studies have shown that treatment is associated with increased bone metabolic parameters. The effects of ESL on bone health have not been systematically evaluated so the objective of this study was to investigate whether adverse effects of ESL on bone mineral density (BMD) could be measured after a 12-month exposure period. In addition, the effects of ESL on bone turnover were investigated using laboratory indicators of bone metabolism. METHODS: BONAPARTE was a prospective, longitudinal, observational study that enrolled patients with focal-onset epilepsy with or without secondary generalization who started treatment with ESL, either as adjunctive treatment or monotherapy, at two tertiary epilepsy centres in Germany between February 2018 and July 2020. Standardised osteodensitometry and biochemical bone metabolism parameters at the time of ESL initiation and 1 year after continuation of therapy were assessed. Comparisons between biochemical and densitometric parameters at baseline and after 12 months of treatment were performed using the paired samples t test. RESULTS: In total, 26 patients (15 male; mean age 41.4 ± 12.5 years) newly treated with ESL were evaluated. Six of these patients had osteopenia at baseline. The mean daily dose of ESL at the 12-month follow-up was 1438 ± 1406 mg. At the group level, there were no significant effects of treatment with ESL on laboratory markers or on BMD. Mean values of BMD in g/cm2 at baseline and after 12 months of ESL treatment were 1.17 (± 0.16) and 1.16 (± 0.16) in the lumbar spine, and 0.98 (± 0.15) and 0.96 (± 0.15) in the proximal femur, respectively. Intra-individually, two patients developed de novo osteopenia measured at the femoral neck associated with relevant changes in bone metabolic parameters. CONCLUSION: Neither osteodensitometry nor bone metabolism parameters showed significant group effects after 1 year of treatment with ESL. Individual fluctuations were observed, however, which may warrant monitoring for longer follow-up periods. The study was registered in the German register for clinical studies under the number DRKS00010430 with the official name BONAPARTE.

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.

Eslicarbazepine acetate for the treatment of status epilepticus.

OBJECTIVE: Due to the high mortality of patients with refractory status epilepticus (SE), new antiseizure medications (ASMs) are needed to improve long-term outcomes. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), a new sodium channel blocker, based on the data from a large epilepsy register. METHODS: Data on the efficacy and safety of ESL for the treatment of refractory SE were gathered from the Mainz Epilepsy Registry (MAINZ-EPIREG). Logistic regression was applied to identify predictors of status interruption. RESULTS: In total, 64 patients with remote symptomatic refractory SE were treated with ESL. No cases of idiopathic generalized epilepsy were included. The average age was 61.4 ± 11.0 years. The median number of administered ASMs before the start of ESL was three. On average, 2 days had elapsed since the onset of SE before the administration of ESL. The initial dose of 800 mg/day was increased up to a maximum daily dose of 1600 mg in case of nonresponse. In 29 of 64 patients (45.3%), the SE could be interrupted within 48 h of ESL therapy. In patients with poststroke epilepsy, the control of SE was achieved in 62% of patients (15/23). The earlier initiation of ESL therapy was an independent predictor of control of SE. Hyponatraemia occurred in five patients (7.8%). Other side effects were not observed. SIGNIFICANCE: Based on these data, ESL may be used as an adjunct therapy for the treatment of refractory SE. The best response was found in patients with poststroke epilepsy. In addition, early initiation of ESL therapy appears to result in better control of SE. Besides a few cases of hyponatraemia, no other adverse events were detected.

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

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

Initial monotherapy with eslicarbazepine acetate for the management of adult patients with focal epilepsy in clinical practice: a meta-analysis of observational studies.

AIM OF THE STUDY: To assess the effectiveness, overall tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as an initial or early monotherapy treatment of adult patients with focal epilepsy under real-world practice conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We focused on real-world longitudinal studies that included or separately reported the results of at least one of the efficacy outcomes of interest. A DerSimonian-Laird random effects model was used with the presentation of the 95% confidence intervals of the estimate. RESULTS: 5 studies met our selection criteria and were included in the quantitative synthesis. All studies were observational and uncontrolled studies, and all but one were retrospective studies. The pooled proportion of patients who were seizure-free for the entire study period was 64.6% (95% CI, 45.7 to 79.8) at month 6 and 56.6% (95% CI, 50.2 to 62.8) at month 12. Pooled retention rates were 95.0% (95% CI, 90.3 to 97.5) at 6 months and 83.6% (95% CI, 73.9 to 90.1) at 12 months. The pooled proportion of patients who reported at least one adverse event was 27.2% (95% CI, 21.7 to 33.6), and the pooled proportion of patients who discontinued ESL due to adverse events was 8.9% (95% CI 6.2 to 12.6). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that initial or early monotherapy with ESL is effective and well-tolerated for the management of adult patients with focal epilepsy in clinical practice, with results that are at least similar to those reported in the pivotal randomized clinical trial of ESL monotherapy. No new safety signals with ESL have been identified in this systematic review.

Eslicarbazepine Acetate as Adjunctive Therapy for Primary Generalized Tonic-Clonic Seizures in Adults: A Prospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), a novel sodium channel blocker, is approved for mono and adjunctive treatment of partial epileptic seizures with or without secondary generalization. Its efficacy in primary generalized seizures has not yet been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ESL in primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS) in an observational study. METHODS: The data were collected from a prospective population-based register. Effectiveness was measured as relative reduction in standardized seizure frequency (SSF), responder rate (≥ 50% reduction in SSF), and seizure freedom rate at 6 and 12 months after initiation of ESL. Safety and tolerability were evaluated using patients' diaries. RESULTS: Fifty-six adult patients with PGTCS were treated with ESL as adjunctive therapy. Of these, 30.4% (n = 17) had myoclonic seizures in addition to PGTCS. The retention rate after 12 months was 80.4% (n = 45). After initiating ESL therapy, reduction in SSF for PGTCS on ESL was 56.0% after 6 months and 56.9% after 12 months (p < 0.01), whereas myoclonic seizures did not show any significant improvement in frequency. The responder rate for PGTCS was 64.3% after 6 months and 66.1% after 12 months, and seizure freedom was achieved in 32.1% and 35.7%, respectively. Forty-three patients (73.2%) reported no side effects. Among the reported side effects of ESL therapy, headache (7.1%), dizziness (8.9%), tiredness (7.1%), nausea (5.4%), and hyponatremia (5.4%) were the most prevalent. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that ESL may provide additional benefits in the treatment of patients with PGTCS and motivate randomized controlled trials in this indication.

Psychiatric adverse events in three phase III trials of eslicarbazepine acetate for focal seizures.

OBJECTIVE: Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is a once-daily (QD), oral anti-seizure medication for the treatment of focal (partial-onset) seizures. Here, we evaluate risk factors for the development of psychiatric treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in clinical trials of adjunctive ESL in adults with focal seizures. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis evaluated data pooled from three Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (BIA-2093-301, -302, -304). After an 8-week baseline period, patients were randomized equally to receive placebo, ESL 400 mg (not reported here), 800 mg, or 1200 mg QD (up to 2-week titration; 12-week maintenance; optional open-label extension [OLE]). Incidences of psychiatric TEAEs were evaluated according to three separate criteria: medical history of psychiatric disorders (yes/no); baseline use of psychotropic drugs (yes/no); Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score at baseline (0-6: normal; 7-19: mild depression; 20-34: moderate depression). RESULTS: The analysis populations comprised 1251 patients for the controlled study period and 1137 patients for the 1-year OLE. Psychiatric TEAE incidence was similar between patients taking ESL and placebo in the controlled and OLE study periods and was not related to ESL dose. Psychiatric TEAEs generally occurred more frequently in patients with a medical history of psychiatric disorders, using psychotropic drugs, or with depressive symptoms than in those without a history, not using psychotropic drugs, or with no depressive symptoms. Depression and anxiety were the most frequently reported psychiatric TEAEs. SIGNIFICANCE: Overall, in clinical trials of ESL in adults with focal seizures, incidences of psychiatric events were not statistically different between patients taking ESL and placebo, were not related to ESL dose, and generally occurred more frequently in patients with baseline psychiatric symptoms or a history of psychiatric disorders. Long-term exposure to ESL was not associated with a marked increase in the incidence of psychiatric TEAEs.

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.

ABCB1 C3435T, G2677T/A and C1236T variants have no effect in eslicarbazepine pharmacokinetics.

Eslicarbazepine acetate is a third-generation anti-epileptic prodrug quickly and extensively transformed to eslicarbazepine after oral administration. Reduction in seizure frequency in patients managed with eslicarbazepine is only partial in the majority of patients and many of them suffer considerable ADRs that require a change of treatment. The P-glycoprotein, encoded by the ABCB1 gene, is expressed throughout the body and can impact the pharmacokinetics of several drugs. In terms of epilepsy treatment, this transporter was linked to drug-resistant epilepsy, as it conditions drug access into the brain due to its expression at the blood-brain barrier. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the impact of three ABCB1 common polymorphisms (i.e., C3435T, or rs1045642, G2677A or rs2032582 and C1236T or rs1128503) in the pharmacokinetics and safety of eslicarbazepine. For this purpose, 22 healthy volunteers participating in a bioequivalence clinical trial were recruited. No significant relationship was observed between sex, race and ABCB1 polymorphism and eslicarbazepine pharmacokinetic variability. In contrast, ABCB1 C1236T C/C diplotype was significantly related to the occurrence of ADRs: one volunteer with this genotype suffered dizziness, somnolence and hand paresthesia, while no other volunteer suffered any of these ADRs (p < 0.045). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study published to date evaluating eslicarbazepine pharmacogenetics. Further studies with large sample sizes are needed to compare the results obtained here.

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.

Efficacy and safety of eslicarbazepine acetate as a first or later adjunctive therapy in patients with focal seizures.

INTRODUCTION: We report outcomes from an open-label, non-randomized, 24-week study of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in adults at earlier and later stages of their treatment history for focal seizures, conducted in a real-world clinical setting. METHODS: ESL was taken as the first adjunctive therapy to levetiracetam (LEV) or lamotrigine (LTG) monotherapy (Arm 1), or as a later adjunctive therapy in treatment-resistant patients (Arm 2). The primary objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of ESL (by retention rates). Secondary objectives were to evaluate efficacy (seizure frequency), safety, tolerability, behavioral changes, mood, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) associated with ESL treatment. RESULTS: The modified intent-to-treat population included 96 patients (Arm 1: n = 41; Arm 2: n = 55) and the safety population included 102 patients (Arm 1: n = 44; Arm 2: n = 58). Overall, 81.8 % of patients in Arm 1 and 63.8 % of patients in Arm 2 completed the 24-week maintenance period. Median reductions in standardized seizure frequency (SSF) were markedly higher in Arm 1 (72.8 %) than Arm 2 (22.8 %), as were responder rates (≥50 % reduction in SSF; Arm 1: 62.5 %; Arm 2: 38.5 %) and rates of seizure freedom (Arm 1: 25.0 %; Arm 2: 9.6 %). Efficacy outcomes were generally more favorable in patients taking ESL in combination with LEV versus other anti-seizure medications (ASMs). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; 81 % vs 73 %) and TEAEs leading to discontinuation (16 % vs 2 %) were reported more frequently in Arm 2 than Arm 1, respectively. Serious adverse events were reported infrequently (Arm 1: 0; Arm 2: 7 %). The most common TEAEs were dizziness, nausea, headache, somnolence, fatigue, nasopharyngitis, vomiting, and anxiety. There were no notable changes in depressive symptoms, mood status, or aggression throughout the study. Health and HRQoL scores were generally high at baseline and did not change throughout the study. However, on average, both clinicians and patients perceived improvement in illness over the course of the study. CONCLUSIONS: ESL was effective and well tolerated both as the first adjunctive therapy to either of the most prescribed first-line ASMs, LEV or LTG, and as a later adjunctive therapy in treatment-resistant patients.

Aspectos farmacológicos diferenciales entre los bloqueadores de los canales de sodio dependientes de voltaje: implicaciones en la práctica clínica / Differential pharmacological aspects between voltage-gated sodium channel blockers: implications in clinical practice

No disponible

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.

Eslicarbazepine Acetate: A Review in Focal-Onset Seizures.

Eslicarbazepine acetate (Zebinix®), a voltage-gated sodium channel blocker, is a once-daily, orally administered anti-seizure medication available in the EU for use as monotherapy in adults with newly diagnosed focal-onset seizures and as adjunctive therapy in adults, adolescents and children aged > 6 years with focal-onset seizures. In adult patients, adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate was generally associated with a significant decrease in seizure frequency and an increase in responder rate compared with placebo. The drug was also an effective monotherapy agent in adult patients, demonstrating noninferiority to controlled-release carbamazepine, in terms of seizure freedom rates. In paediatric patients, eslicarbazepine acetate provided seizure control when administered as adjunctive therapy, with the benefits appearing to be dependent on age and dose. The antiepileptic efficacy of eslicarbazepine acetate as adjunctive therapy or as monotherapy was maintained during longer-term extension studies, with each extension study period being up to 2 years. Oral eslicarbazepine acetate was generally well tolerated when administered as adjunctive therapy or monotherapy in adult patients and when administered as adjunctive therapy in paediatric patients, with most adverse events being of mild or moderate intensity. In conclusion, with the convenience of once-daily administration, eslicarbazepine acetate is an effective and generally well-tolerated treatment option for adults, adolescents and children aged > 6 years with focal-onset seizures.

[Long-term effects of dibenzazepines on metabolic parameters: retrospective comparison of carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine and eslicarbazepine acetate in the real world]. / Efectos a largo plazo de las dibenzacepinas sobre los parámetros metabólicos: comparación retrospectiva de carbamacepina, oxcarbacepina y acetato de eslicarbacepina en el mundo real.

INTRODUCTION: Although carbamazepine (CBZ) has strong enzyme-inducing properties, oxcarbazepine (OXC) and eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) are thought to have a milder effect. These drugs are known to have effects on lipid metabolism and may cause hyponatremia and changes in blood cell counts and liver function tests. AIM: To compare the long-term effects of three antiepileptic drugs (CBZ, OXC and ESL) on these variables. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients treated with CBZ, OXC or ESL. Natremia, lipid concentrations, blood cell counts and liver function tests were compared before, during and at the end of the study period. RESULTS: A total of 292 patients were included. Of these, 143 were treated with CBZ, 55 with OXC and 94 with ESL. CBZ showed a greater impact on lipid metabolism, while OXC was correlated with lower mean sodium levels and a higher frequency of hyponatremia. Lifestyle recommendations related to diet, physical activity and water intake were helpful in overcoming these side effects. No other statistically significant differences were detected. CONCLUSIONS: While CBZ showed a greater impact on lipid metabolism, OXC displayed a higher frequency of hyponatremia. Lifestyle recommendations may be helpful in overcoming these side effects. No other statistically significant differences were found.

TITLE: Efectos a largo plazo de las dibenzacepinas sobre los parámetros metabólicos: comparación retrospectiva de carbamacepina, oxcarbacepina y acetato de eslicarbacepina en el mundo real.Introducción. Aunque la carbamacepina (CBZ) tiene fuertes propiedades de inducción enzimática, se cree que la oxcarbacepina (OXC) y el acetato de eslicarbacepina (ESL) ejercen un efecto más leve. Se sabe que estos fármacos tienen efectos sobre el metabolismo lipídico, pueden causar hiponatremia y cambios en el recuento de células sanguíneas y en las pruebas de función hepática. Objetivo. Comparar los efectos a largo plazo de tres medicamentos antiepilépticos (CBZ, OXC y ESL) en estas variables. Pacientes y métodos. Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo de pacientes consecutivos tratados con CBZ, OXC o ESL. La natremia, las concentraciones de lípidos, el recuento de células sanguíneas y las pruebas de función hepática se compararon antes, durante y al final del período de estudio. Resultados. Se incluyó a 292 pacientes. De ellos, 143 fueron tratados con CBZ, 55 con OXC y 94 con ESL. La CBZ mostró un mayor impacto en el metabolismo de los lípidos, mientras que la OXC se correlacionó con niveles medios de sodio más bajos y una frecuencia mayor de hiponatremia. Las recomendaciones de estilo de vida relacionadas con la dieta, la actividad física y la ingesta de agua fueron útiles para superar estos efectos secundarios. No se detectaron otras diferencias estadísticamente significativas. Conclusiones. Mientras que la CBZ mostró un mayor impacto en el metabolismo de los lípidos, la OXC mostró una mayor frecuencia de hiponatremia. Las recomendaciones de estilo de vida pueden ser útiles para superar estos efectos secundarios. No se encontraron otras diferencias estadísticamente significativas.

Eslicarbazepine acetate in post-stroke epilepsy: Clinical practice evidence from Euro-Esli.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in patients included in the Euro-Esli study who had focal seizures associated with post-stroke epilepsy (PSE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Euro-Esli was a pooled analysis of 14 European clinical practice studies. Effectiveness assessments (evaluated after 3, 6 and 12 months of ESL treatment and at final follow-up ["last visit"]) included rates of response (≥50% seizure frequency reduction), seizure freedom (no seizures since at least the prior visit) and retention. Safety/tolerability was assessed throughout ESL treatment by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs. A post hoc analysis was conducted of patients with PSE versus patients without PSE ("non-PSE"). RESULTS: Of 1656 patients included in the analysis, 76 (4.6%) had PSE and 1580 (95.4%) had non-PSE. Compared with non-PSE patients, PSE patients were significantly older, had significantly shorter epilepsy duration, significantly lower total baseline seizure frequency, and were treated with significantly fewer prior and concomitant antiepileptic drugs (P < .001 for all). At the last visit, the responder rate was significantly higher in PSE versus non-PSE patients (72.9% vs 60.6%; P = .040), as was the seizure freedom rate (48.6% vs 31.7%; P = .003). After 12 months, retention was significantly higher in PSE versus non-PSE patients (87.8% vs 77.4%; P = .035). The incidence of AEs was similar for PSE versus non-PSE patients (36.0% vs 35.8%; P = .966). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that ESL may be an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for patients with focal seizures due to PSE.