Mood disorders in adults with epilepsy: a review of unrecognized facts and common misconceptions.

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurologic conditions. Its clinical manifestations are not restricted to seizures but often include cognitive disturbances and psychiatric disorders. Prospective population-based studies have shown that people with epilepsy have an increased risk of developing mood disorders, and people with a primary mood disorder have an increased risk of developing epilepsy. The existence of common pathogenic mechanisms in epilepsy and mood disorders may explain the bidirectional relation between these two conditions. Recognition of a personal and family psychiatric history at the time of evaluation of people for a seizure disorder is critical in the selection of antiseizure medications: those with mood-stabilizing properties (e.g., lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine) should be favoured as a first option in those with a positive history while those with negative psychotropic properties (e.g., levetiracetam, topiramate) avoided. While mood disorders may be clinically identical in people with epilepsy, they often present with atypical manifestations that do not meet ICD or DSM diagnostic criteria. Failure to treat mood disorders in epilepsy may have a negative impact, increasing suicide risk and iatrogenic effects of antiseizure medications and worsening quality of life. Treating mood disorders in epilepsy is identical to those with primary mood disorders. Yet, there is a common misconception that antidepressants have proconvulsant properties. Most antidepressants are safe when prescribed at therapeutic doses. The incidence of seizures is lower in people randomized to antidepressants than placebo in multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trials of people treated for a primary mood disorder. Thus, there is no excuse not to prescribe antidepressant medications to people with epilepsy.

The burden of chronic drug-refractory focal onset epilepsy: Can it be prevented?

Despite the many therapeutic options for epilepsy available today, a third of patients still have poorly controlled epilepsy. Over the years, their transition through lines of treatment exposes them to increased risk of disease progression, mortality, morbidity, mental distress, and not least significantly impaired quality of life (QoL). The present review explores the multiple factors contributing to the impairment of health-related QoL in PWE-including both seizure-related and non seizure-related. The analysis aims to identify potential areas of intervention and strategies for a more holistic approach to epilepsy care and inform policy-makers and healthcare providers in their approach to this condition.

Onset of efficacy and adverse events during Cenobamate titration period.

OBJECTIVES: Cenobamate is an antiseizure medication (ASM) approved in Europe as adjunctive therapy for adults with inadequately controlled focal seizures. This post hoc analysis reports onset of efficacy and characterizes time to onset, duration, and severity of the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) during cenobamate titration. MATERIALS & METHODS: Adult patients with uncontrolled focal seizures taking 1 to 3 concomitant ASMs were randomized to receive adjunctive cenobamate or placebo (double-blind studies C013 and C017) or cenobamate (open-label study C021). Outcome assessments included efficacy (median percentage change in seizure frequency and onset [studies C013 and C017]) and safety (onset, duration, and severity of TEAEs [all studies]). RESULTS: Onset of efficacy was observed by Weeks 1 to 4 of titration in studies C013 and C017 which used a faster titration schedule than study CO21. In study C013, the median percentage seizure frequency reduction was 36.7% in patients receiving cenobamate versus 16.3% in those taking placebo (p = .002); in study C017, significant differences in seizure frequency emerged in Week 1 and continued throughout titration between all cenobamate groups and placebo (p < .001). The most commonly reported TEAEs were somnolence, dizziness, fatigue, and headache, with first onset of each reported as early as Week 1; however, the majority resolved. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in seizure frequency occurred during titration with initial efficacy observed prior to reaching the target dose. These reductions were regarded as clinically meaningful because they may indicate early efficacy at lower doses than previously expected and had a considerable impact on patient quality of life. Long-term treatment with adjunctive cenobamate was generally safe and well-tolerated.

A post-approval observational study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of perampanel as an add-on therapy in adolescent, adult, and elderly patients with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: Perampanel is a once-daily oral anti-seizure medication for focal-onset seizures, with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), and generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Study 402 (NCT02033902) collected safety information on clinically important treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) from real-world clinical practice in patients aged ≥12 years with refractory epilepsy who were receiving perampanel as an add-on therapy. METHODS: Study 402 was a multicenter, observational, 52-week cohort study conducted in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Israel, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Safety data were gathered prospectively from patients at clinic visits. The primary endpoint was the incidence of clinically important TEAEs defined as dizziness; blurred vision; somnolence; aggression; balance disorders (including ataxia and falls); weight gain; suicidality; drug abuse, misuse, dependence, and withdrawal; skin photosensitivity; and unintended pregnancy while taking levonorgestrel-containing contraceptives. Off-label use of perampanel and outcomes associated with any suspected drug-drug interaction were also monitored and recorded. Secondary endpoints included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Clinical Global Impression of Change. RESULTS: Of 483 patients in the Safety Analysis Set, mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 38.3 (15.1) years, 48.4% were female, mean (SD) time since diagnosis was 23 (14.8) years, 56.5% had focal impaired awareness seizures, and 48.7% had FBTCS. Overall, 243 (49.3%) patients treated with perampanel completed the study and 227 (46.0%) patients discontinued. The most common primary reason for discontinuation was adverse events (n = 130 [26.4%]). A total of 301 (62.3%) patients reported at least one TEAE, of which 45 (15.0%) patients had severe TEAEs and 256 (85.0%) patients had TEAEs judged as mild to moderate in severity. Overall, 51 (10.6%) patients had serious TEAEs, including two deaths that were judged as not related to perampanel, and 136 (28.2%) patients experienced a TEAE that led to treatment discontinuation. Clinically important TEAEs were reported by 153 (31.7%) patients, with the most common being dizziness (13.9%), balance disorders (5.6%), aggression (5.4%), and weight gain (5.4%). In general, the frequencies of clinically important TEAEs were lower in this study compared with previous interventional clinical studies, except for the incidence of suicidality (2.1% vs 1.0%) and aggression (5.4% vs 5.1%). Mean total HADS scores were similar at the end of the study compared with baseline; at the end of treatment, most (>60%) patients had no shift in HADS score category; ∼15% of patients moved to a worse category vs baseline and ∼20% of patients moved to an improved category vs baseline for both anxiety and depression. Based on investigator assessment, disease severity was improved in 185/415 (44.6%) patients. A subanalysis in elderly patients aged ≥65 years showed similar results to the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: The data from this observational study are consistent with the known safety profile of perampanel derived from previous interventional phase II and III clinical studies. No unusual or unexpected TEAEs were observed in this real-world clinical practice setting.

Randomized controlled trial of moderate cardiovascular exercise for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: The primary research question of this study was whether a moderate cardiovascular exercise program can reduce seizure frequency in patients with focal drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). The hypothesis is that cardiovascular fitness will reduce seizure frequency in persons with epilepsy (PWE). METHODS: Twenty-eight patients were randomized into two groups; exercise or relaxation. The exercise group were given an ergometric bicycle sent to their home to be used for 150 min/week, 30 min/day for 5 days a week for the study period of 6 months. Participants in the relaxation group were given audio muscular relaxation exercises to be performed for 20 min at least five times per week for the study period of 6 months. Seizure counts and exercise/relaxation sessions were registered daily in a written diary. Both groups received monthly motivational telephone calls. Seizures, anxiety, and depression symptom ratings (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)), health status ratings (RAND-36), aerobic capacity (estimated VO2max), self-efficacy for exercise (SEE), level of physical activity, and adverse events were measured at the baseline and after the 6 months of intervention. CONSORT guidelines were followed. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients completed the intervention. There were no significant changes in seizure frequency in either of the groups. Six months of moderate exercise did increase the level of physical activity and maximal oxygen uptake. SIGNIFICANCE: Moderate exercise did not affect seizure frequency in this study. The patients in the exercise group did increase their estimated VO2max, which is an important indicator for health, without deterioration of seizure frequency. This was accomplished with only minimal support from a physiotherapist every month. To exercise at home at a moderate intensity level with regular support may therefore be an option for patients with epilepsy. The patients in the exercise group increased their level of physical activity significantly, which indicates that they were compliant to the treatment.

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.

Long-term safety and efficacy of lacosamide and controlled-release carbamazepine monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: A large-scale, double-blind trial (SP0993; NCT01243177) demonstrated that lacosamide was noninferior to controlled-release carbamazepine (carbamazepine-CR) in terms of efficacy, and well tolerated as first-line monotherapy in patients (≥16 years of age) with newly diagnosed epilepsy. We report primary safety outcomes from the double-blind extension of the noninferiority trial (SP0994; NCT01465997) and post hoc analyses of pooled long-term safety and efficacy data from both trials. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to lacosamide or carbamazepine-CR. Doses were escalated (lacosamide: 200/400/600 mg/d; carbamazepine-CR: 400/800/1200 mg/d) based on seizure control. Eligible patients continued randomized treatment in the extension. Primary outcomes of the extension were treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious TEAEs, and discontinuations due to TEAEs. Post hoc analyses of data from combined trials included 12- and 24-month seizure freedom and TEAEs by number of comorbid conditions. RESULTS: A total of 886 patients were treated in the initial trial and 548 in the extension; 211 of 279 patients (75.6%) on lacosamide and 180/269 (66.9%) on carbamazepine-CR completed the extension. In the extension, 181 patients (64.9%) on lacosamide and 182 (67.7%) on carbamazepine-CR reported TEAEs; in both groups, nasopharyngitis, headache, and dizziness were most common. Serious TEAEs were reported by 32 patients (11.5%) on lacosamide and 22 (8.2%) on carbamazepine-CR; 12 (4.3%) and 21 (7.8%) discontinued due to TEAEs. In the combined trials (median exposure: lacosamide 630 days; carbamazepine-CR 589 days), Kaplan-Meier estimated proportions of patients with 12- and 24-month seizure freedom from first dose were 50.8% (95% confidence interval 46.2%-55.4%) and 47.0% (42.2%-51.7%) on lacosamide, and 54.9% (50.3%-59.6%) and 50.9% (46.0%-55.7%) on carbamazepine-CR. Incidences of drug-related TEAEs and discontinuations due to TEAEs increased by number of comorbid conditions and were lower in patients on lacosamide. SIGNIFICANCE: Long-term (median ~2 years) lacosamide monotherapy was efficacious and generally well tolerated in adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Seizure freedom rates were similar with lacosamide and carbamazepine-CR.

Cannabinoids for epilepsy: What do we know and where do we go?

Over the past decade there has been an increasing interest in using cannabinoids to treat a range of epilepsy syndromes following reports of some remarkable responses in individual patients. The situation is complicated by the fact that these agents do not appear to work via their attachment to endogenous cannabinoid receptors. Their pharmacokinetics are complex, and bioavailability is variable, resulting in difficulty in developing a suitable formulation for oral delivery. Drug interactions also represent another complication in their everyday use. Nevertheless, recent randomized, placebo-controlled trials with cannabidiol support its efficacy in Dravet and Lennox-Gastaut syndromes. Further placebo-controlled studies are underway in adults with focal epilepsy using cannabidivarin. The many unanswered questions in the use of cannabinoids to treat epileptic seizures are briefly summarized in the conclusion.

Efficacy and safety of eslicarbazepine acetate versus controlled-release carbamazepine monotherapy in newly diagnosed epilepsy: A phase III double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the efficacy and safety of once-daily eslicarbazepine acetate in comparison with twice-daily (BID) controlled-release carbamazepine (carbamazepine-CR) monotherapy in newly diagnosed focal epilepsy patients. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial (NCT01162460) utilized a stepwise design with 3 dose levels. Patients who remained seizure-free for the 26-week evaluation period (level A: eslicarbazepine acetate 800 mg/carbamazepine-CR 200 mg BID) entered a 6-month maintenance period. If a seizure occurred during the evaluation period, patients were titrated to the next target level (level B: eslicarbazepine acetate 1200 mg/carbamazepine-CR 400 mg BID, level C: eslicarbazepine acetate 1600 mg/carbamazepine-CR 600 mg BID) and the evaluation period began again. The primary endpoint was the proportion of seizure-free patients for 6 months after stabilization in the per protocol set. The predefined noninferiority criteria were -12% absolute and -20% relative difference between treatment groups. RESULTS: Eight hundred fifteen patients were randomly assigned; 785 (388 in the eslicarbazepine acetate group and 397 in the carbamazepine-CR group) were included in the per protocol set, and 813 (401 in the eslicarbazepine acetate group and 412 in the carbamazepine-CR group) were included in the full analysis set for the primary analysis. Overall, 71.1% of eslicarbazepine acetate-treated patients and 75.6% of carbamazepine-CR-treated patients were seizure-free for ≥6 months at the last evaluated dose (average risk difference = -4.28%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -10.30 to 1.74; relative risk difference = -5.87%, 95% CI = -13.50 to 2.44) in the per protocol set. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between groups for patients in the safety set. Noninferiority was also demonstrated in the full analysis set, as 70.8% of patients with eslicarbazepine acetate and 74.0% with carbamazepine-CR were seizure-free at the last evaluated dose (average risk difference = -3.07, 95% CI = -9.04 to 2.89). SIGNIFICANCE: Treatment with eslicarbazepine acetate was noninferior to BID carbamazepine-CR. With its once-daily formulation, eslicarbazepine acetate provides a useful option for first-line monotherapy for adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy and focal onset seizures.

Final safety, tolerability, and seizure outcomes in patients with focal epilepsy treated with adjunctive perampanel for up to 4 years in an open-label extension of phase III randomized trials: Study 307.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term safety/tolerability and seizure outcomes in patients with focal seizures treated with adjunctive perampanel in the open-label extension (OLEx) Study 307 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00735397). METHODS: Patients could enter the OLEx after completing one of the double-blind, phase III studies. Safety/tolerability and seizure outcomes (median percent reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days, and 50% responder and seizure freedom rates) were analyzed during the OLEx in cohorts with the same minimum perampanel exposure for all focal seizures and secondarily generalized seizures (SGS). An additional sensitivity analysis accounted for early dropouts from the OLEx. RESULTS: Of 1480 patients randomized across the double-blind studies, 1218 enrolled in the OLEx. The majority of patients (65.4%-80.9%) received a last daily dose of perampanel 12 mg and completed long-term assessment on the same, or one fewer, concomitant antiepileptic drug compared with baseline. The long-term safety/tolerability profile was consistent with the double-blind studies. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) leading to discontinuation in >1% of patients were dizziness, irritability, and fatigue; TEAEs of clinical interest were stable for 4 years. In all cohorts, seizure outcome improvements were sustained over time. Median percent seizure reductions per 28 days reached 62.0% and 70.6% for patients with ≥3 (n = 436) or ≥4 (n = 78) years of exposure, respectively; corresponding 50% responder rates were 59.6% and 67.9%. The largest median percent seizure reduction per 28 days occurred in SGS for patients with SGS at baseline: 88.0% and 100.0% for patients with ≥3 (n = 190) or ≥4 (n = 28) years of exposure, respectively; in these cohorts 40.0% and 53.6% of patients, respectively, attained freedom from SGS. Median percent seizure reductions per 28 days were similar when early dropouts were accounted for. SIGNIFICANCE: Long-term (≤4 years) adjunctive perampanel treatment did not raise new safety/tolerability signals and was associated with markedly improved seizure control, particularly in patients with SGS at baseline.

Perampanel in routine clinical use across Europe: Pooled, multicenter, observational data.

OBJECTIVE: To pool observational data on the routine use of perampanel to obtain information on real-world outcomes and data in populations typically underrepresented in clinical trials. METHODS: Individual-level data of people with epilepsy treated with perampanel at 45 European centers were merged into a single dataset. Prespecified outcomes were: 1-year retention rate, 1-year seizure freedom rate (duration ≥6 months), and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). In addition, relationships were explored with logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: The full analysis set comprised 2396 people: 95% had focal seizures; median epilepsy duration was 27 years; median number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) was 2; and median prior AEDs was 6. One-year retention rate was 48% (1117/2332; 95% confidence interval [CI] 46-50%), and 1-year seizure-free rate (≥6-month duration) was 9.2% (74/803; 95% CI 7-11%). Median treatment duration was 11.3 months (1832 patient-years); median dose was 8 mg. In 388 individuals with available data at 3, 6, and 12 months, responder rates were 42%, 46%, and 39%, respectively. During the first year, TEAEs were reported in 68% of participants (1317/1497; 95% CI 66-70%). Logistic regression found higher age at perampanel initiation was associated with higher seizure-free rate, and higher number of prior AEDs with lower seizure-free rate and lower rates of somatic TEAEs. In 135 individuals aged ≥65 years, 1-year retention rate was 48% and seizure-free rate was 28%. SIGNIFICANCE: Across a large, treatment-resistant population, add-on perampanel was retained for ≥1 year by 48% of individuals, and 9% were seizure-free for ≥6 months. TEAEs were in line with previous reports in routine clinical use, and less frequent than in the clinical trial setting. No new or unexpected TEAEs were seen. Despite the limitations of observational studies, our data indicate that some individuals may derive a marked benefit from the use of perampanel.

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.

Estimating Long-Term Vagus Nerve Stimulation Effectiveness: Accounting for Antiepileptic Drug Treatment Changes.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) in combination with pharmacological therapy in a longitudinal retrospective study at a single center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 130 consecutive patients implanted with a VNS device between the years 2000 and 2013 was analyzed. Seizure frequency and pharmacological antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments were recorded prior to as well as at one, two, and five years after VNS implantation. RESULTS: Median age at epilepsy onset was five years and mean years from diagnosis to VNS implantation was 16.5 years. There was a significant seizure reduction overall (all p < 0.001). The responder (≥50% seizure frequency reduction) rate increased from 22.1 to 43.8% between the first and fifth year for the cohort as a whole, with the largest increase between the first and second year (22.1-38.1%) and regardless of AED changes. VNS effectiveness did not differ between patients who altered or remained on the same AEDs. Patients were treated with a median of three AEDs throughout the study and the number of AEDs significantly increased after two (p = 0.007) and five (p = 0.001) years. CONCLUSIONS: VNS is a well-tolerated palliative neuromodulatory treatment for drug resistant epilepsy with a 43.8% seizure reduction after five years. Our data supports the idea that VNS effectiveness increases with time. Therefore we suggest that VNS should be evaluated for at least two years after implantation. AED changes should try to be kept to a minimum during evaluation in order to determine the effectiveness of VNS.

Medical management of refractory epilepsy--practical treatment with novel antiepileptic drugs.

The ultimate treatment goal in epilepsy therapy is always freedom from seizures with as few treatment adverse effects as possible. If seizures persist with the first monotherapy, alternative monotherapy with another antiepileptic drug (AED) should be considered. Continuing seizures should lead to a reevaluation of differential diagnosis and adherence. Epilepsy surgery as an alternative therapy may be suitable in selected cases. If the diagnosis of epilepsy is established and epilepsy surgery is not appropriate, AED treatment should be optimized. Evidence for how to proceed is lacking. Concepts such as rational polytherapy have been advocated but remain speculative concerning better efficacy based on the use of AEDs with differing modes of action. A variety of new AEDs including rufinamide, lacosamide, vigabatrin, perampanel, and retigabine have been recently introduced in the United States. They are briefly characterized in this update review.

Perampanel for adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures: a pooled dose-response analysis of phase III studies.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand the relationship between efficacy and perampanel dose, integrated actual (last) dose data from three phase III trials and an extension study (blinded Conversion Period; open-label Maintenance Period) were analyzed. METHODS: Seizure frequency data were analyzed in patients who were randomized to and completed the 13-week Maintenance Period of the phase III studies on perampanel 8 mg, and who received an actual (last) dose of 12 mg during (1) the extension 16-week blinded Conversion Period or (2) weeks 1-13 of the extension Maintenance Period. Due to a treatment-by-region interaction (p = 0.042), analyses excluded patients from the Latin America region (n = 162/1,480; 10.9% of the treated cohort). RESULTS: Of 372 patients randomized to 8 mg in the phase III studies, 273 completed the Maintenance Period at 8 mg and 267 entered the extension study. In patients who then had an actual (last) dose of 12 mg during the extension blinded Conversion Period (n = 217), median percent change in seizure frequency per 28 days improved from -32.4% (8 mg, phase III Maintenance Period) to -44.2% (12 mg, extension blinded Conversion Period); 50% responder rates increased slightly from 37.3% to 42.9%. In patients who completed the phase III studies on 8 mg and had an actual (last) dose of 12 mg during weeks 1-13 of the extension Maintenance Period (n = 181), median percent change in seizure frequency per 28 days improved from -34.1% (phase III Maintenance Period) to -46.0% (weeks 1-13 extension Maintenance Period); 50% responder rates were 39.2% and 46.4%. Seizure control remained substantially unchanged in patients who completed the phase III studies at 12 mg and continued on that dose during the extension. SIGNIFICANCE: Increasing perampanel dose from 8 to 12 mg can produce additional benefits in seizure control in at least some patients who tolerate the higher dose.

Long-term safety of perampanel and seizure outcomes in refractory partial-onset seizures and secondarily generalized seizures: results from phase III extension study 307.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate safety, tolerability, seizure frequency, and regional variations in treatment responses with the AMPA antagonist, perampanel, in a large extension study during up to 3 years of treatment. METHODS: Patients ≥ 12 years old with partial-onset seizures despite treatment with 1-3 antiepileptic drugs at baseline completed a perampanel phase III trial and entered extension study 307 (NCT00735397). Patients were titrated to 12 mg/day (or their individual maximum tolerated dose) during the blinded conversion period, followed by open-label maintenance. Exposure, safety (adverse events [AEs], vital signs, weight, electrocardiography [ECG], laboratory values) and seizure outcomes were analyzed; key measures were assessed by geographic regions. RESULTS: Among 1,216 patients, median exposure was 1.5 years (range 1 week to 3.3 years), with >300 patients treated for >2 years. Treatment retention was 58.5% at cutoff. AEs reported in ≥ 10% of patients were dizziness, somnolence, headache, fatigue, irritability, and weight increase. Only dizziness and irritability caused discontinuation in >1% of patients (3.9% and 1.3%, respectively). The only serious AEs reported in >1% of patients were epilepsy-related (convulsion, 3.0%; status epilepticus, 1.1%). No clinically relevant changes in vital signs, ECG or laboratory parameters were seen. After titration/conversion, responder rate and median percentage change from baseline in seizure frequency were stable: 46% for both measures at 9 months (in 980 patients with ≥ 9 months' exposure) and 58% and 60%, respectively, at 2 years (in the 337 patients with 2 years' exposure). Median percentage reduction in frequency of secondarily generalized (SG) seizures ranged from 77% at 9 months (N = 422) to 90% at 2 years (N = 141). Among the 694 patients with maintenance data ≥ 1 year, 5.3% were seizure-free for the entire year. SIGNIFICANCE: No new safety signals emerged during up to 3 years of perampanel exposure in 39 countries. Seizure responses remained stable, with marked reductions, particularly in SG seizures.

Safety and efficacy of adjunctive lacosamide among patients with partial-onset seizures in a long-term open-label extension trial of up to 8 years.

Long-term (up to 8 years of exposure) safety and efficacy of the antiepileptic drug lacosamide was evaluated in this open-label extension trial (SP615 [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00552305]). Patients were enrolled following participation in a double-blind trial or one of two open-label trials of adjunctive lacosamide for partial-onset seizures. Dosage adjustments of lacosamide (100-800 mg/day) and/or concomitant antiepileptic drugs were allowed to optimize tolerability and seizure reduction. Of the 370 enrolled patients, 77%, 51%, and 39% had >1, >3, or >5 years of lacosamide exposure, respectively. Median lacosamide modal dose was 400mg/day. Common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were dizziness (39.7%), headache (20.8%), nausea (17.3%), diplopia (17.0%), fatigue (16.5%), upper respiratory tract infection (16.5%), nasopharyngitis (16.2%), and contusion (15.4%). Dizziness (2.2%) was the only TEAE that led to discontinuation in >2% of patients. Ranges for median percent reductions in seizure frequency were 47-65%, and those for ≥ 50% responder rates were 49-63% for 1-, 3-, and 5-year completer cohorts. Exposure to lacosamide for up to 8 years was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to previous double-blind trials, and efficacy was maintained.

Therapeutic strategies during cenobamate treatment initiation: Delphi panel recommendations.

The goal of epilepsy treatment is seizure freedom, typically with antiseizure medication (ASM). If patients fail to attain seizure control despite two trials of appropriately chosen ASMs at adequate doses, they are classified as having drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). Adverse events (AEs) commonly occur in people with DRE because they are typically on ⩾2 ASMs, increasing the potential for drug-drug interactions. Early emerging AEs may impact adherence, decrease quality of life, and delay achieving optimal treatment dosages. Cenobamate is an oral ASM with a long half-life which has proven to be highly effective in clinical trials. An international Delphi panel of expert epileptologists experienced in the clinical use of cenobamate and other ASMs was convened to develop consensus best practices for managing patients during and after cenobamate titration, with consideration for its known pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions, to allow patients to reach the most appropriate cenobamate dose while limiting tolerability issues. The modified Delphi process included one open-ended questionnaire and one virtual face-to-face meeting. Participants agreed that cenobamate can be prescribed for most patients experiencing focal-onset seizures. Patients initiating cenobamate therapy should have access to healthcare professionals as needed and their treatment response should be evaluated at the 100-mg dose. Patients with intellectual disabilities may need additional support to navigate the titration period. Proactive down-titration or withdrawal of sodium channel blockers (SCBs) is recommended when concomitant ASM regimens include ⩾2 SCBs. When applicable, maintaining a concomitant clobazam dose at ~5-10 mg may be beneficial. Patients taking oral contraceptives, newer oral anticoagulants, or HIV antiretroviral medications should be monitored for potential interactions. Because clinical evidence informing treatment decisions is limited, guidance regarding dose adjustments of non-ASM drugs was not developed beyond specific recommendations presented in the Summary of Product Characteristics.

Perampanel, a selective, noncompetitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptor antagonist, as adjunctive therapy for refractory partial-onset seizures: interim results from phase III, extension study 307.

PURPOSE: To evaluate safety, tolerability, and seizure outcome data during long-term treatment with once-daily adjunctive perampanel (up to 12 mg/day) in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures. METHODS: Study 307 was an extension study for patients completing the double-blind phase of three pivotal phase III trials (studies 304, 305, and 306). The study consisted of two phases: an open-label treatment phase (including a 16-week blinded conversion period and a planned 256-week maintenance period) and a 4-week follow-up phase. Patients were blindly titrated during the conversion period to their individual maximum tolerated dose (maximum 12 mg/day). Adverse events (AEs) were monitored throughout the study and seizure frequency recorded. The interim data cutoff date for analyses was December 1, 2010. KEY FINDINGS: In total, 1,218 patients were enrolled in the study. At the interim cutoff date, 1,186 patients were in the safety analysis set; 1,089 (91.8%) patients had >16 weeks of exposure to perampanel, 580 (48.9%) patients had >1 year of exposure, and 19 (1.6%) patients had >2 years of exposure. At the interim analysis, 840 (70.8%) patients remained on perampanel treatment. The large majority of patients (n = 1,084 [91%]) were titrated to 10 mg or 12 mg/day. Median (range) duration of exposure was 51.4 (1.1-128.1) weeks. Treatment-emergent AEs were reported in 87.4% of patients. The most frequent were dizziness (43.9%), somnolence (20.2%), headache (16.7%), and fatigue (12.1%). Serious AEs were reported in 13.2% of patients. In the intent-to-treat analysis set (n = 1,207), the frequency of all seizures decreased over the first 26 weeks of perampanel treatment in patients with at least 26 weeks of exposure to perampanel (n = 1,006 [83.3%]); this reduction was maintained in patients with at least 1 year of exposure (n = 588 [48.7%]). The overall median percent changes in seizure frequency in patients included in each 13-week interval of perampanel treatment were -39.2% for weeks 14-26 (n = 1,114), -46.5% for weeks 40-52 (n = 731), and -58.1% for weeks 92-104 (n = 59). Overall responder rates in patients included in each 13-week interval of perampanel treatment were 41.4% for weeks 14-26 (n = 1,114), 46.9% for weeks 40-52 (n = 731), and 62.7% for weeks 92-104 (n = 59). During the blinded conversion period, the reduction in seizure frequency in patients previously randomized to placebo (-42.4%, n = 369) was similar to that in patients previously randomized to perampanel (-41.5%, n = 817). SIGNIFICANCE: Consistent with pivotal phase III trials, these interim results demonstrated that perampanel had a favorable tolerability profile in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures over the longer term. The decrease in seizure frequency was consistent and maintained in those patients over at least 1 year of perampanel exposure.

Updated ILAE evidence review of antiepileptic drug efficacy and effectiveness as initial monotherapy for epileptic seizures and syndromes.

The purpose of this report was to update the 2006 International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) report and identify the level of evidence for long-term efficacy or effectiveness for antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) as initial monotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed or untreated epilepsy. All applicable articles from July 2005 until March 2012 were identified, evaluated, and combined with the previous analysis (Glauser et al., 2006) to provide a comprehensive update. The prior analysis methodology was utilized with three modifications: (1) the detectable noninferiority boundary approach was dropped and both failed superiority studies and prespecified noninferiority studies were analyzed using a noninferiority approach, (2) the definition of an adequate comparator was clarified and now includes an absolute minimum point estimate for efficacy/effectiveness, and (3) the relationship table between clinical trial ratings, level of evidence, and conclusions no longer includes a recommendation column to reinforce that this review of efficacy/evidence for specific seizure types does not imply treatment recommendations. This evidence review contains one clarification: The commission has determined that class I superiority studies can be designed to detect up to a 20% absolute (rather than relative) difference in the point estimate of efficacy/effectiveness between study treatment and comparator using an intent-to-treat analysis. Since July, 2005, three class I randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 11 class III RCTs have been published. The combined analysis (1940-2012) now includes a total of 64 RCTs (7 with class I evidence, 2 with class II evidence) and 11 meta-analyses. New efficacy/effectiveness findings include the following: levetiracetam and zonisamide have level A evidence in adults with partial onset seizures and both ethosuximide and valproic acid have level A evidence in children with childhood absence epilepsy. There are no major changes in the level of evidence for any other subgroup. Levetiracetam and zonisamide join carbamazepine and phenytoin with level A efficacy/effectiveness evidence as initial monotherapy for adults with partial onset seizures. Although ethosuximide and valproic acid now have level A efficacy/effectiveness evidence as initial monotherapy for children with absence seizures, there continues to be an alarming lack of well designed, properly conducted epilepsy RCTs for patients with generalized seizures/epilepsies and in children in general. These findings reinforce the need for multicenter, multinational efforts to design, conduct, and analyze future clinically relevant adequately designed RCTs. When selecting a patient's AED, all relevant variables and not just efficacy and effectiveness should be considered.