A real-world comparison among third-generation antiseizure medications: Results from the COMPARE study.

OBJECTIVE: There are few comparative data on the third-generation antiseizure medications (ASMs). We aimed to assess and compare the effectiveness of brivaracetam (BRV), eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), lacosamide (LCM), and perampanel (PER) in people with epilepsy (PWE). Efficacy and tolerability were compared as secondary objectives. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective study collected data from 22 Italian neurology/epilepsy centers. All adult PWE who started add-on treatment with one of the studied ASMs between January 2018 and October 2021 were included. Retention rate was established as effectiveness measure and described using Kaplan-Meier curves and the best fitting survival model. The responder status and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) were used to evaluate efficacy and safety, respectively. The odds of AEs and drug efficacy were estimated by two multilevel logistic models. RESULTS: A total of 960 patients (52.92% females, median age = 43 years) met the inclusion criteria. They mainly suffered from structural epilepsy (52.29%) with monthly (46.2%) focal seizures (69.58%). Compared with LCM, all the studied ASMs had a higher dropout risk, statistically significant in the BRV levetiracetam (LEV)-naïve (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17-3.29) and PER groups (HR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.06-2.55). Women were at higher risk of discontinuing ESL (HR = 5.33, 95% CI = 1.71-16.61), as well as PER-treated patients with unknown epilepsy etiology versus those with structural etiology (HR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.05-2.88). BRV with prior LEV therapy showed lower odds of efficacy (odds ratio [OR] = .08, 95% CI = .01-.48) versus LCM, whereas a higher efficacy was observed in women treated with BRV and LEV-naïve (OR = 10.32, 95% CI = 1.55-68.78) versus men. PER (OR = 6.93, 95% CI = 3.32-14.44) and BRV in LEV-naïve patients (OR = 6.80, 95% CI = 2.64-17.52) had a higher chance of AEs than LCM. SIGNIFICANCE: Comparative evidence from real-world studies may help clinicians to tailor treatments according to patients' demographic and clinical characteristics.

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

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

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

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

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.

Melting point depression for enhanced dissolution rate of eslicarbazepine acetate.

BACKGROUND: Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is antiepileptic agent which is approved for use as single therapy or in combination with other drugs. However, it suffers from poor oral bioavailability. Modulation of drug crystallinity can be utilized as an approach for enhancing drug dissolution. OBJECTIVE: Accordingly, the aim of this study was to investigate possible eutectic system formation between eslicarbazepine with either tartaric acid or citric acid. METHODOLOGY: Eslicarbazepine acetate was subjected to wet co-grinding with tartaric acid or citric acid at different molar ratios. The prepared formulations were assessed using Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR), X-ray powder diffraction (XRPD), differential scanning calorimetry in addition to dissolution studies. RESULTS: The characterization techniques confirmed eutectic system formation with tartaric and citric acid with the optimum molar ratio for eutexia being 1:1 for both substances. Development of eutectic systems significantly enhanced the dissolution rate of ESL. Increasing the ratio of tartaric acid higher than the optimum ratio for eutexia resulted in additional increase in drug dissolution rate. This suggested the impact of pH modification on drug dissolution rate. The enhanced dissolution rate in case of the formulations containing ESL and citric acid was accredited to combined effect of eutaxia and pH modulation. These explanations were proven from investigating the dissolution rate of the physical mixtures which were inferior in their dissolution rate compared with the prepared formulations. CONCLUSION: co-processing of ESL with either citric acid or tartaric acid resulted in hastened dissolution rate which was accredited to combined effect of eutexia with pH modification.

Eslicarbazepine acetate response in intellectual disability population versus general population.

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

Pharmacokinetic variability of eslicarbazepine in real clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION: Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is a sodium channel blocker indicated for partial-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization, at a single daily dose. There are very few publications on the levels of ESL metabolites in real clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To describe the serum levels of licarbazepine (main metabolite of ESL) in patients with refractory epilepsy in real clinical practice. To evaluate the influence of age, sex, and polytherapy on levels and adverse effects. METHODS: This study involved a retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with epilepsy treated with ESL for whom plasma levels of licarbazepine were available, measured by spectrophotometry. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were included. One patient had licarbazepine levels of 0 (admitted not taking the drug) was not analyzed. Mean licarbazepine levels of 7.66 µg/mL (400 mg/day dose), 16.56 µg/mL (800-mg dose), and 20.80 µg/mL (1200 mg) were significantly different. There was a significant correlation between daily dose and serum levels (p < 0.05) and between the concentration/dose ratio and lower to higher doses (p < 0.05). Pharmacokinetic variability (coefficient of variation for the concentration/dose ratio) was 33.2%. We found a decrease in the concentration/dose ratio in the 1200 mg/day dose, compared to lower doses. We did not find differences by sex or intake of other antiepileptic inducers or metabolic inhibitors. Fifteen patients (23.8%) had mild nonsymptomatic hyponatremia. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that it is not necessary to routinely determine licarbazepine levels. In specific cases, licarbazepine levels can be useful to assess adherence to treatment and for personalized dose adjustment.

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.

The evidence for switching dibenzazepines in people with epilepsy.

The dibenzazepines particularly carbamazepine are associated with known adverse effects (AEs) and drug to drug interactions. Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is structurally distinct from other members of the dibenzazepine family and has the advantage of once daily dosing. Observational and trial data report successful switching from older dibenzazepines to ESL. The evidence base for doing so is unclear and not standardized. This is a literature review following the PRISMA scoping guidelines identifying the evidence of switching dibenzazepines. Transition methods, ratios, tolerance to change, adverse effects and retention post-change were evaluated. Study quality was assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine levels of evidence. Seven studies investigated the outcome of transition between carbamazepine and or oxcarbazepine to ESL, with specific data on the transition dose ratio and scheduling. The available data suggest that the overnight transition between oxcarbazepine and ESL in a 1:1 ratio (most common) is generally well tolerated with high retention rates. The transition showed improvement in adverse events associated with oxcarbazepine across a variety of domains. Almost 60% transitioned because of adverse events experienced no further symptoms at 12 months. There is less data on the transition from carbamazepine to ESL. The evidence available suggests an overnight transition in the ratio of 1:1.3-1.5. The retention rate following transition from carbamazepine to ESL was 69% (follow-up of 4 months) with almost half of those transitioned because of adverse events experiencing no further symptoms. There is Grade C evidence available to help guide clinicians in the transition.

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.

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

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

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.

Associations between seizure severity change and patient characteristics, changes in seizure frequency, and health-related quality of life in patients with focal seizures treated with adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate: Post hoc analyses of clinical trial results.

The relationships between seizure severity change and patient characteristics, changes in seizure frequency, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) may be important for determining the overall impact of medication therapy on patients with epilepsy. The objectives of these post hoc analyses of the global Phase III 093-0304 trial (NCT00988429, Study 304) of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in patients with refractory focal (partial-onset) seizures (FS) were to evaluate associations between seizure severity change, measured by the Seizure Severity Questionnaire (SSQ), and 1) patient characteristics, 2) seizure frequency change, standardized as the seizure frequency (SSF) per 28-day period, and 3) change in HRQoL, evaluated by the Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory-31 (QOLIE-31) and the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). The analyses were conducted on the per-protocol population (PPP) of patients who were randomized to a placebo arm (n = 188) or an ESL-active group that included treatment with adjunctive ESL 800 mg once daily (QD; n = 184) or adjunctive ESL 1200 mg QD (n = 175). General linear models (GLM) were used to measure the association between SSQ change and patient baseline characteristics or percentage change in the SSF from baseline. Associations between changes in the SSQ and changes in the QOLIE-31 and MADRS were examined using GLM with patient baseline characteristics as covariates. Subgroup analyses were performed for patients in the ESL-active group and those treated with ESL 800 mg or ESL 1200 mg. Minimal clinically important difference (MCIDs) thresholds were used to assess improvements in SSQ scores. The analyses included 547 per-protocol patients. Patients using 1 antiepileptic drug (AED) at baseline had greater improvements in the SSQ compared with those receiving 2 AEDs (P = 0.0606). Treatment with ESL 1200 mg was significantly associated with clinically meaningful improvements in the SSQ (P = 0.0005). The SSQ improvements were significantly associated with an SSF reduction of ≥75%, compared with no reduction (P < 0.0001). In the PPP and the ESL-active group, SSQ improvements were significantly associated with improvements in QOLIE-31 Total Score (TS; P < 0.0001) and the Seizure Worry (SW; P < 0.0001) and Social Functioning (SF; P = 0.0030) subscales. In the ESL 1200 mg subgroup, SSQ improvements were significantly associated with improvements in QOLIE-31 TS (P < 0.0001) and the SW (P < 0.0001) and Energy/Fatigue (EF; P = 0.0007) subscales. In the ESL 800 mg subgroup, improvements in the SSQ were significantly associated with improvements in QOLIE-31 TS (P = 0.0362) and the SW (P = 0.0241) subscale. There was no significant association between changes in the SSQ and changes in the MADRS in patients treated with ESL. These findings demonstrated that in this clinical trial population, adding ESL to baseline AED therapy had utility for decreasing seizure severity and improving HRQoL. There were no significant associations between changes in seizure severity and changes in depressive symptoms in patients with FS.

Clinical outcomes of eslicarbazepine acetate monotherapy for focal-onset seizures: A multicenter audit.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) monotherapy in routine clinical practice for the treatment of focal-onset seizures. METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective, observational study conducted in patients older than 16 years treated with ESL as first-line monotherapy or converted to ESL monotherapy from polytherapy or other monotherapy. Outcomes included 1-year retention rate, seizure-free rates after 6 and 12 months of monotherapy treatment, and safety/tolerability issues. RESULTS: A total of 256 patients were included (106 first-line and 150 conversion to monotherapy; 56 patients aged >65 years). Overall, the 1-year retention rate was 79% (72.7% in the ≥65 years subgroup) and seizure-free rates at 6 and 12 months were 59.3% and 55.3% (72.2% and 67.3% in the ≥65 years subgroup), without significant differences when comparing first-line vs conversion-to-ESL monotherapy groups (P = .979). However, the conversion group was heterogeneous and included 43 (29.1%) patients that were seizure free the year prior ESL introduction. A substantially higher proportion of patients remained seizure free for the entire follow-up among those who initiated ESL due to tolerability problems compared with those treated due to inadequate seizure control (71.4% vs 37.3%). Overall, 62 of 256 (24.2%) patients reported AEs (39.3% in >65 years subgroup) and led to discontinuation in 20/256 (7.8%) patients (12.5% in >65 years subgroup). Commonly reported AEs were somnolence (6.6%), dizziness (6.3%), and headache (4.3%). Hyponatremia was recorded in five patients, the majority (4/5) of whom were older than 65 years. CONCLUSIONS: Eslicarbazepine acetate was effective and well-tolerated as first-line or conversion to monotherapy in a clinical setting in adult and elderly patients with focal-onset seizures.

Eslicarbazepine acetate as monotherapy in clinical practice: Outcomes from Euro-Esli.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) monotherapy in clinical practice in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Euro-Esli was a pooled analysis of 14 European clinical practice studies. Responder rate (≥50% seizure frequency reduction) and seizure freedom rate (seizure freedom at least since prior visit) were assessed after 3, 6 and 12 months of ESL treatment and at last visit. Adverse events (AEs) and AEs leading to ESL discontinuation were assessed throughout follow-up. A subanalysis was conducted to assess outcomes for patients treated initially with ESL monotherapy and for patients treated at the last visit with ESL monotherapy. RESULTS: ESL was used as monotherapy in 88/2045 (4.3%) patients initially and in 229/1340 (17.1%) patients at the last visit. At 12 months, responder and seizure freedom rates were 94.1% and 88.2%, respectively, in patients treated initially with ESL monotherapy, and 93.2% and 77.4%, respectively, in patients treated at the last visit with ESL monotherapy. Corresponding values for patients treated initially with ESL adjunctive therapy were 74.8% and 39.0%, respectively; and for patients treated at the last visit with ESL adjunctive therapy, corresponding values were 70.4% and 25.9%, respectively. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable in patients treated with ESL as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy. The most commonly reported AEs (≥5% of patients in any group) were dizziness, somnolence, instability/ataxia, and fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: These clinical practice data support the use of ESL as monotherapy, as well as adjunctive therapy, for focal-onset seizures, complementing evidence from clinical trials.

Levels of anger in epilepsy patients treated with eslicarbazepine acetate.

INTRODUCTION: Aggressive behavior is commonly associated with epilepsy and can be influenced by the antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) taken. Sodium channel blockers, specifically the carboxamides derivatives such as carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine, are some of the AEDs considered to have a favorable psychiatric effect profile. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess whether the carboxamide analogue eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) has any effect on the levels of anger in patients with epilepsy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We prospectively recruited adult patients with epilepsy on treatment with ≦2 active AEDs, who required AED addition or substitution, excluding patients with active psychiatric disorders. All patients completed anger level (STAXI-2), depression-anxiety (HADS), and quality of life (QOLIE-10) assessments, and were evaluated at baseline and within 3-6 months after treatment initiation. RESULTS: Of 78 patients receiving ESL, as add-on therapy or in substitution of a previous AED, were recruited into the ESL group, with an average age of 48 years and 54% men. We used a control group of 58 patients receiving AEDs other than carboxamides. CONCLUSIONS: Patients overall showed improvements in anger levels, mood, and quality of life during the follow-up. A history of psychiatric disorders was a limiting factor to improve anger levels. As compared to controls, anger levels improved in ESL patients independently from seizure control. Therefore, ESL seems to exert a favorable influence on the anger levels of otherwise healthy patients with epilepsy, including those unresponsive to seizure control. The potential ESL anti-aggressive effect should be studied in patients with epilepsy and active psychiatric disorders.

Effectiveness of eslicarbazepine acetate in dependency of baseline anticonvulsant therapy: Results from a German prospective multicenter clinical practice study.

Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is a third-generation antiepileptic drug (AED) approved as monotherapy for partial-onset seizures in adults and as adjunctive therapy in patients aged above 6 years in the European Union (EU). The prospective observational Zebinix Effects in DEpendency of BAseline Conditions (ZEDEBAC) study aimed at investigating the effectiveness of ESL in clinical practice, with ESL being administered as monotherapy (mono group), as only add-on to a current monotherapy (1+ group), or as add-on to ≥2 baseline AEDs (≥2+ group). In total, 237 patients were included, 35 in the mono group, 114 in the 1+, and 88 in the ≥2+ group. Six-month retention rates were 93.9%, 78.0%, and 75.3% in the mono, 1+, and ≥2+ group. There were 90.5%, 77.6%, and 48.3% of patients in the mono, 1+, and ≥2+ groups who were responders (patients with a ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency at follow-up vs. baseline). Seizure freedom rates were 81.5%, 47.9%, and 23.4%, respectively. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occurred in 11.4% of patients of the mono, 19.3% of the 1+, and 28.4% of patients of the ≥2+ group. Hyponatremia was reported as ADR in 3.4% of all patients. Although baseline variables differed considerably, with most elderly patients with tumor-related and vascular etiologies in the mono group and most patients with refractory epilepsies with pronounced use of concomitant sodium channel blockers (SCBs) in the ≥2+ group, retention as a measure of real-life effectiveness turned out not to be substantially different and favorable in all groups.

Health-related quality of life in patients treated with eslicarbazepine acetate monotherapy: Pooled analysis from two registered clinical trials.

PURPOSE: While antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment effectiveness is traditionally assessed based on seizure frequency reduction (SFR), the overall value of AEDs in managing epilepsy and associated sequelae may be best assessed by how patients feel and function in terms of overall health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We conducted a pooled analysis of the Quality of Life in Epilepsy-31 (QOLIE-31) questionnaire from two phase 3 trials to explore the effect of response to conversion to eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) monotherapy on HRQoL. METHODS: Data were pooled from two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, historical control phase 3 trials examining conversion to ESL monotherapy in adults with inadequately controlled partial-onset seizures (POS). The relationship between HRQoL and ESL treatment response was examined through the analysis of week 18 QOLIE-31 scores between patients who met the SFR ≥50% threshold (responders) and patients with SFR <50% (nonresponders). The analysis was conducted in the efficacy population (intent-to-treat (ITT) patients who entered the AED taper/conversion period) and completer population (efficacy patients who completed the ESL monotherapy period) and was repeated using an SFR ≥75% threshold. RESULTS: In the efficacy population, week 18 QOLIE-31 total score least squares mean (LSM) was significantly higher for responders with ≥50% SFR (LSM difference: 3.0; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.2-5.8; p = 0.037) and with ≥75% SFR (LSM difference: 7.0; 95% CI: 3.6-10.3; p < 0.001) than nonresponders. In the completer population, overall quality of life (QoL) (LSM difference: 5.1; 95% CI: 1.5-8.6; p = 0.006) and social functioning (LSM difference: 5.4; 95% CI: 0.1-10.7; p = 0.046) were significantly higher for responders with ≥50% SFR than nonresponders, and all domain LSMs were higher for responders with ≥75% SFR (all p < 0.05) than nonresponders. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of data from the phase 3 trials demonstrated significantly higher HRQoL among ESL responders with SFR of ≥75% and also at the lower SFR threshold of ≥50% compared with nonresponders.

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.

Eslicarbazepine acetate as adjunctive treatment in partial-onset epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the clinical response to eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as add-on therapy in adult patients with partial-onset epilepsy by means of the time-to-baseline seizure count method. METHODS: We retrospectively identified consecutive patients with partial-onset seizures, with or without secondary generalization, prescribed to ESL add-on therapy. The primary endpoint was the time-to-baseline monthly seizure count. Subgroup analysis was performed according to carbamazepine (CBZ)/oxcarbazepine (OXC) status (prior vs never use). Secondary outcomes were the rate of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) and the AEs affecting ≥5% of patients. RESULTS: One-hundred and eighteen patients were included. The median time-to-baseline monthly seizure count was 46 (35-101) days in the overall study cohort. The number of concomitant anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) was associated with the time-to-endpoint (adjusted hazard ratio [adj HR]=2.22, 95% CI 1.18-4.14, P=.013 for two AEDs vs one; adj HR=3.65, 95% CI 1.66-8.06, P=.001 for three or more AEDs vs one). Groupwise, the median times-to-baseline seizure count were 47 (35-97) and 43 (34-103) in patients with prior and never exposure to CBZ/OXC, respectively (P for log-rank test=.807). Adverse events occurred in 53.4% (63 of 118) of patients; the most frequently reported were dizziness (13.6%), somnolence (11.9%), nausea (6.8%), and fatigue (5.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Add-on ESL improved seizure control and was overall well-tolerated in adult patients with partial-onset epilepsy.