Treatment simplification to optimize cenobamate effectiveness and tolerability: A real-world retrospective study in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the impact of co-antiseizure medication (co-ASM) optimization on the effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive cenobamate (CNB) in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy in a real-world setting. METHODS: This unicentric, retrospective, observational study included adults with focal-onset seizures who had received ≥2 previous ASMs. The main effectiveness endpoints included responder rates and seizure frequency reduction at 3, 6, and 12-month visits. The number of co-ASMs and defined daily dose (DDD) were analyzed at every visit. Safety endpoints included adverse drug reactions (ADRs). RESULTS: Thirty-four patients with a median epilepsy duration of 22 years and a median of 15.5 seizures/month were analyzed. The median number of prior ASMs was 12, and the mean number of co-ASMs was 2.9 (SD 1). There was a reduction in seizure frequency/month from baseline to the last visit (p < 0.0001). Between baseline and the end of the study, the mean number of co-ASMs in the per-protocol (PP) population was reduced from 2.9 to 1.6 (p < 0.0001), and DDD was reduced from 3.6 to 1.4 (p < 0.0001). Sodium channel blockers (carbamazepine and lacosamide) and GABAergic drugs (clobazam) were the agents with the most significant reductions in DDD after 12 months. The percentage of patients in the PP population with ≥3 co-ASMs was reduced from 61.8% at baseline to 14.3% at 12 months; 1 patient was receiving CNB as monotherapy at the last visit. At the last visit, 85.7% of the PP population were ≥50% responders, and 33.3% were seizure-free. The percentage of patients with ADRs in the PP population was 71.9% at 3 months and 52.3% at 12 months. SIGNIFICANCE: Following rational polytherapy, optimization of co-ASM management during CNB treatment allowed high seizure freedom rates despite meaningful reductions in co-medication, while also achieving both good tolerability and patient satisfaction scores in a highly drug-resistant population. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Many patients with epilepsy still have seizures, even after being treated with several different epilepsy drugs. In this study of 34 patients from a Spanish clinic, we show that the epilepsy drug cenobamate can reduce the number of seizures in these patients, even after many other epilepsy drugs have failed. We also show that patients treated with cenobamate can reduce the dose or even stop taking certain other epilepsy drugs. This allows them to simplify their treatment and reduce adverse effects while still keeping control of their epilepsy.

Spanish consensus on the management of concomitant antiseizure medications when using cenobamate in adults with drug-resistant focal seizures.

OBJECTIVE: Cenobamate is an antiseizure medication (ASM) associated with high rates of seizure freedom and acceptable tolerability in patients with focal seizures. To achieve the optimal cenobamate dose for maximal potential effectiveness while avoiding or minimizing drug-related adverse events (AEs), the administration of cenobamate with other ASMs must be managed through concomitant ASM load reduction. A panel of Spanish epilepsy experts aimed to provide a Spanish consensus on how to adjust the dose of concomitant ASMs in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) in order to improve the effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive cenobamate. METHODS: A three-stage modified Delphi consensus process was undertaken, including six Spanish epileptologists with extensive experience using cenobamate. Based on current literature and their own expert opinion, the expert panel reached a consensus on when and how to adjust the dosage of concomitant ASMs during cenobamate titration. RESULTS: The expert panel agreed that tailored titration and close follow-up are required to achieve the best efficacy and tolerability when initiating cenobamate in patients receiving concomitant ASMs. When concomitant clobazam, phenytoin, phenobarbital, and sodium channel blockers are taken at high dosages, or when the patient is receiving two or more sodium channel blockers, dosages should be proactively lowered during the cenobamate titration period. Other concomitant ASMs should be reduced only if the patient reports a moderate/severe AE at any stage of the titration period. SIGNIFICANCE: Cenobamate is an effective ASM with a dose-dependent effect. To maximize effectiveness while maintaining the best tolerability profile, co-medication management is needed. The recommendations included herein provide practical guidance for proactive and reactive management of co-medication in cenobamate-treated patients with DRE and a high drug load. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Patients with epilepsy may continue to have seizures even after treatment with several different antiseizure medications (ASMs). Cenobamate is an ASM that can reduce seizures in these patients. In this study, six Spanish experts in epilepsy discussed the best way to use cenobamate in drug-resistant epilepsy. They provide practical guidance on when and how the dose of other ASMs might be adjusted to reduce side effects and optimize the use of cenobamate.

Cenobamate and Clobazam Combination as Personalized Medicine in Autoimmune-Associated Epilepsy With Anti-Gad65 Antibodies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Autoimmune-associated epilepsy (AAE) with antiglutamic acid decarboxylase 65 (GAD65) antibodies is considered a T-cell-mediated encephalitis that evolves to drug-resistant epilepsy. We do not have an effective therapeutic strategy for these patients. Because the GAD enzyme is primarily responsible for the conversion of glutamate to GABA, the mechanism of epileptogenesis in this condition predicts decreased levels of GABA content in synaptic vesicles. Cenobamate (CNB) acts as a positive allosteric modulator at synaptic and extra synaptic GABAA receptors, producing increased inhibitory neurotransmission in the brain. This mechanism could be especially beneficial in AAE with anti-GAD65 antibodies because it would be able to correct the imbalance due to the GABAergic stimulation deficit in postsynaptic neurons. METHODS: We recruit a retrospective multicentric consecutive case series of AAE with anti-GAD65 antibodies from 5 epilepsy units in Spain who have received treatment with CNB. RESULTS: A total of 8 patients were recruited. This cohort of highly refractory patients have failed a mean of 9.50 (SD = 3.20) ASM without control of seizures for sustained periods of time. The average number of seizures per month during the previous 3 months before CNB treatment was 19.63 (SD = 17.03). After the introduction of CNB improvement was achieved in all our patients, with a median reduction in the number of seizures of 92.22% (interquartile range [IQR]: 57.25-98.75). The mean follow-up was 156.75 days (SD = 68.23). In patients with concomitant treatment with clobazam (CLB), the median percentage of seizure reduction was higher than those not taking CLB: 94.72% (IQR: 87.25-100) vs 41.50% (p = 0.044) and also higher than the control group of patients with refractory epilepsy not related to anti-GAD65 treated with the same combination: 94.72% (IQR: 87.25-100) vs 45.00% (IQR: 25.00-87.00) (p = 0.019). DISCUSSION: Treatment with the combination CNB + CLB could be a type of personalized medicine in patients with AAE with anti-GAD65. Our preliminary data will need to be endorsed with new prospective and controlled studies.

Value contribution of cenobamate for the treatment of Focal-Onset Seizures (FOS) in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) in Spain through reflective Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA).

INTRODUCTION: Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological conditions worldwide. The main goal of its treatment is to achieve seizure freedom without intolerable adverse effects. However, despite the availability of many anti-seizure medications, including the latest options, called third-generation anti-seizure medications (ASMs), approximately 40% of people with epilepsy present drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). Cenobamate is the first ASM approved in Spain for the adjunctive treatment of Focal-Onset Seizures (FOS) in adult patients with DRE. In a chronic disease with a portfolio of available ASMs, the decision to introduce a new therapeutic alternative must follow a holistic evaluation of value provided. Reflective Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methodology allows to determine the value contribution of a treatment in a given indication considering all relevant criteria for healthcare decision-making in a transparent and systematic manner from the perspective of relevant stakeholders. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the relative value contribution of cenobamate in the treatment of FOS in patients with DRE compared with third-generation ASMs using reflective MCDA-based methodology. METHODS: A systematic literature review (combining biomedical databases and grey literature sources) was performed to populate the Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking (EVIDEM) MCDA framework adapted to determine what represents value in the management of FOS in patients with DRE in Spain. The study was conducted in two phases. The first took place in 2021 with a multi-stakeholder group of eight participants. The second phase was conducted in 2022 with a multi-stakeholder group of 32 participants. Participants were trained in MCDA methodology and scored four evidence matrices (cenobamate vs. brivaracetam, vs. perampanel, vs. lacosamide and vs. eslicarbazepine acetate). Results were analyzed and discussed in a group meeting through reflective MCDA discussion methodology. RESULTS: DRE is considered a very severe condition associated with many important unmet needs, mainly with regard to the lack of more effective treatments to achieve the ultimate goal of treatment. Compared to third-generation ASMs, cenobamate is perceived to have a better efficacy profile based on improvements in responder rate and seizure freedom. Regarding safety, it is considered to have a similar profile to alternatives and a positive quality-of-life profile. Cenobamate results in lower direct medical costs (excluding pharmacological) and indirect costs. Overall, cenobamate is regarded as providing a high therapeutic impact and supported by high-quality evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Based on reflective MCDA methodology and stakeholders' experience in clinical management of epilepsy in Spain, cenobamate is perceived as a value-added option for the treatment of patients with DRE when compared with third-generation ASMs.

Real-world safety and effectiveness of cenobamate in patients with focal onset seizures: Outcomes from an Expanded Access Program.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated early, real-world outcomes with cenobamate (CNB) in a large series of patients with highly drug-resistant epilepsy within a Spanish Expanded Access Program (EAP). METHOD: This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational study in 14 hospitals. Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, focal seizures, and EAP authorization. Data were sourced from patient clinical records. Primary effectiveness endpoints included reductions (100%, ≥90%, ≥75%, and ≥50%) or worsening in seizure frequency at 3-, 6-, and 12-month visits and at the last visit. Safety endpoints included rates of adverse events (AEs) and AEs leading to discontinuation. RESULTS: The study included 170 patients. At baseline, median epilepsy duration was 26 years and median number of seizures/month was 11.3. The median number of prior antiseizure medications (ASMs) and concomitant ASMs were 12 and 3, respectively. Mean CNB dosages/day were 176 mg, 200 mg, and 250 mg at 3, 6, and 12 months. Retention rates were 98.2%, 94.5%, and 87% at 3, 6, and 12 months. At last available visit, the rate of seizure freedom was 13.3%; ≥90%, ≥75%, and ≥50% responder rates were 27.9%, 45.5%, and 63%, respectively. There was a significant reduction in the number of seizures per month (mean: 44.6%; median: 66.7%) between baseline and the last visit (P < 0.001). Responses were maintained regardless of the number of prior or concomitant ASMs. The number of concomitant ASMs was reduced in 44.7% of patients. The cumulative percentage of patients with AEs and AEs leading to discontinuation were 68.2% and 3.5% at 3 months, 74.1% and 4.1% at 6 months, and 74.1% and 4.1% at 12 months. The most frequent AEs were somnolence and dizziness. SIGNIFICANCE: In this highly refractory population, CNB showed a high response regardless of prior and concomitant ASMs. AEs were frequent but mostly mild-to-moderate, and few led to discontinuation.

Perampanel outcomes at different stages of treatment in people with focal and generalized epilepsy treated in clinical practice: Evidence from the PERMIT study.

Introduction: The PERMIT study is the largest pooled analysis of perampanel (PER) clinical practice data conducted to date. Methods: This post-hoc analysis of PERMIT investigated the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of PER when used as early add-on therapy (after failure of one or two previous antiseizure medications) in comparison with late add-on therapy (after failure of three or more previous antiseizure medications). Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months, and at the last visit (last observation carried forward). Effectiveness was assessed by seizure type (total seizures, focal seizures, generalized tonic-clonic seizures [GTCS]) and assessments included seizure freedom rate and responder rate. Safety and tolerability were assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs. Results: The Full Analysis Set included 1184 and 2861 PWE treated with PER as early and late add-on therapy, respectively. Compared to the late add-on subgroup, the early add-on subgroup was characterized by later mean age at epilepsy onset, shorter mean duration of epilepsy, lower rates of intellectual disability and psychiatric comorbidity, and lower frequency of seizures per month, suggesting a less severe form of epilepsy in this subgroup. After 12 months, retention was significantly higher in the early versus late add-on subgroup (67.7% vs. 62.4%; p = 0.004). At the last visit, responder rates in the early versus late add-on subgroup were significantly higher for total seizures (68.2% vs. 39.3%; p < 0.001), focal seizures (65.0% vs. 36.8%; p < 0.001) and GTCS (83.7% vs. 67.2%; p < 0.001), as were seizure freedom rates (total seizures, 35.9% vs. 11.9% [p < 0.001]; focal seizures, 29.4% vs. 8.7% [p < 0.001]; GTCS, 69.0% vs. 48.1% [p < 0.001]). Incidence of AEs was significantly lower in the early versus late add-on subgroup (42.1% vs. 54.7%; p < 0.001), as was the rate of discontinuation due to AEs over 12 months (15.0% vs. 18.1%; p = 0.031). Discussion: This study demonstrated that PER was effective and generally well tolerated when initiated as early or late add-on therapy, but it was significantly more effective and better tolerated when initiated early. These findings support PER's use as a broad-spectrum, early add-on therapy for use in PWE with focal and generalized seizures.

Proposed Recommendations for the Management of Depression in Adults with Epilepsy: An Expert Consensus.

INTRODUCTION: Experts agree that there is a need for protocols to guide health professionals on how to best manage psychiatric comorbidities in patients with epilepsy (PWE). We aimed to develop practical recommendations for key issues in the management of depression in PWE. METHODS: This was a qualitative study conducted in four steps: (1) development of a questionnaire on the management of depression in PWE to be answered; (2) literature review and, if evidence from guidelines/consensus or systematic reviews was available, drafting initial recommendations; (3) a nominal group methodology for reviewing initial recommendations and formulating new recommendations on those issues without available evidence; and (4) drafting and approving the final recommendations. A scientific committee (one neurologist and one psychiatrist) was responsible for the development of the project and its scientific integrity. The scientific committee selected a panel of experts (nine neurologists and nine psychiatrists with experience in this field) to be involved in the nominal group meetings and to formulate final recommendations. RESULTS: Fifteen recommendations were formulated. Four on the screening and diagnosis: screening and diagnosis of depression, evaluation of the risk of suicide, and diagnosis of depression secondary to epilepsy; nine on the management of depression: referral to a psychiatrist, selection of the antiseizure medication, change of antiseizure medication, antidepressant treatment initiation, selection of antidepressant, use of antidepressants during pregnancy, use of psychotherapy, antidepressant treatment duration, and discontinuation of antidepressant treatment; two on the follow-up: duration of the follow-up under usual conditions, and follow-up of patients at risk of suicide. CONCLUSION: We provide recommendations based on expert opinion consensus to help healthcare professionals assess depression in PWE. The detection and treatment of major depressive disorders are key factors in improving epilepsy outcomes and avoiding suicide risk.

Effectiveness and safety of perampanel monotherapy for focal and generalized tonic-clonic seizures: Experience from a national multicenter registry.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) monotherapy in routine clinical practice for the treatment of focal onset and generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS). METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective, observational study was conducted in patients aged ≥12 years treated with PER as primary monotherapy or converted to PER monotherapy by progressive reduction of background antiepileptic drugs. Outcomes included retention, responder, and seizure-free rate after 3, 6, and 12 months and tolerability throughout the follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 98 patients (mean age = 49.6 ± 21.7 years, 51% female) with focal seizures and/or GTCS were treated with PER monotherapy for a median exposure of 14 months (range = 1-57) with a median dose of 4 mg (range = 2-10). The retention rates at 3, 6, and 12 months and last follow-up were 93.8%, 89.3%, 80.9%, and 71.4%, respectively. The retention rates according to the type of monotherapy (primary vs conversion) did not differ (log-rank P value = .57). Among the 98 patients, 61.2% patients had seizures throughout the baseline period, with a median seizure frequency of 0.6 seizures per month (range = 0.3-26). Responder rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 79.6%, 70.1%, and 52.8%, respectively, and seizure freedom rates at the same points were 62.7%, 56.1%, and 41.5%. Regarding the 33 patients who had GTCS in the baseline period, 87.8% were seizure-free at 3 months, 78.1% at 6 months, and 55.1% at 12 months. Over the entire follow-up, PER monotherapy was generally well tolerated, and only 16% of patients discontinued PER due to adverse events (AEs). Female patients were found to be at a higher risk of psychiatric AEs (female vs male odds ratio = 2.85, 95% confidence interval = 1-8.33, P = .046). SIGNIFICANCE: PER demonstrated good effectiveness and a good safety profile when used as primary therapy or conversion to monotherapy at relatively low doses, in a clinical setting with patients with focal seizures and GTCS.

Effectiveness and safety of perampanel as early add-on treatment in patients with epilepsy and focal seizures in the routine clinical practice: Spain prospective study (PERADON).

OBJECTIVE: Perampanel (PER) has been shown to be effective as an adjunctive therapy for controlling refractory focal-onset seizures (FOS). However, the information as early add-on for the treatment of FOS in the clinical practice is still scarce and must be further assessed. METHODS: An observational prospective study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of early add-on PER, assessed as 50% responders (seizure frequency reduced by at least 50% during the last 3 months as compared with baseline) rate at 6 and 12 months, in patients with FOS in the routine clinical practice of Spain. RESULTS: One hundred and thirteen patients (mean age: 40.3 years, 51.3% male) with FOS received PER as early add-on (1st add-on: 37.2% and 2nd: 62.8%) for a mean exposure of 11 months (mean PER dose: 6.3 mg/day at month 12). At 6 months, 50.4% and 20.4% of the patients were responders and seizure-free (respectively) relative to baseline (3 months prior to PER initiation), and at 12 months, 68.1% and 26.5% of the patients were responders and seizure-free (respectively), relative to baseline (3 months prior to PER initiation). The retention rate at 6 and 12 months was 83.2% and 80.5%, respectively. The percentage of seizure-free patients at 12 months was significantly (p = 0.033) higher when PER was added as first vs. second add-on. The number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) was significantly reduced from baseline to 6 and 12 months (p = 0.001). Treatment was simplified in 23.9% of patients at the end of the observation period. Drug-related adverse events (AEs), most mild or moderate, were reported in 30.1% of patients, with irritability (8%) and dizziness (7.1%) as the most frequent ones. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first observational, prospective study to evaluate efficacy and safety of early adjunctive treatment with PER in patients with focal epilepsy at 12 months. Perampanel demonstrated a good efficacy and safety profile when used at a median dose of 6 mg/day, regardless of the combination with other AEDs. Adverse events were mild or moderate, with dizziness being the most frequent one.

MONOZEB: Long-term observational study of eslicarbazepine acetate monotherapy.

AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) when used as monotherapy for 1 year or more in routine clinical use in patients with focal seizures in epilepsy clinics in Spain. METHODS: This is a retrospective, observational, noninterventional study. Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years, had focal seizures, and started on ESL ≥1 year before database closure. Primary endpoint was the following: proportion seizure-free for ≥6 months at 1 and 2 years. Secondary endpoints included retention on ESL monotherapy at 1 and 2 years, seizure frequency change, seizure worsening, and side effects. Other analyses included seizure freedom from baseline to 1 and 2 years and outcomes in special populations. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-five patients were included (127 on first-line monotherapy and 308 converting to ESL monotherapy): median daily dose was 800 mg at all time points; 63.2% were seizure-free at 1 year, 65.1% at 2 years, and 50.3% for the entire follow-up. Mean duration of ESL monotherapy was 66.7 months; retention was 88.0% at 1 year and 81.9% at 2 years. Mean reduction in seizure frequency was 75.5% at last visit. Over the entire follow-up, seizure worsening was seen in 22 patients (5.1%), side effects in 28.0%, considered severe in 1.8%, and leading to discontinuation in 5.7%. Dizziness, hyponatremia (sodium <135 mEq/l), and somnolence were the most frequent side effects. Outcomes in special populations (patients aged ≥65 years and those with psychiatric history or learning difficulty) were consistent with the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with focal seizures taking ESL monotherapy had excellent retention, high seizure-free rates, and good tolerability up to 2 years.

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.

BRIVA-LIFE-A multicenter retrospective study of the long-term use of brivaracetam in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate long-term effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam in clinical practice in patients with focal epilepsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective study. Patients aged ≥16 years were started on brivaracetam from November 2016 to June 2017 and followed over 1 year. Data were obtained from medical records at 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment initiation for evaluation of safety- and seizure-related outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 575 patients were included in analyses; most had been treated with ≥4 lifetime antiepileptic drugs. Target dosage was achieved by 30.6% of patients on the first day. Analysis of primary variables at 12 months revealed that mean reduction in seizure frequency was 36.0%, 39.7% of patients were ≥50% responders and 17.5% were seizure-free. Seizure-freedom was achieved by 37.5% of patients aged ≥65 years. Incidence of adverse events (AEs) and psychiatric AEs (PAEs) was 39.8% and 14.3%, respectively, and discontinuation due to these was 8.9% and 3.7%, respectively. Somnolence, irritability, and dizziness were the most frequently reported AEs. At baseline, 228 (39.7%) patients were being treated with levetiracetam; most switched to brivaracetam (dose ratio 1:10-15). Among those who switched because of PAEs (n = 53), 9 (17%) reported PAEs on brivaracetam, and 3 (5.7%) discontinued because of PAEs. Tolerability was not highly affected among patients with learning disability or psychiatric comorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: In a large population of patients with predominantly drug-resistant epilepsy, brivaracetam was effective and well-tolerated; no unexpected AEs occurred over 1 year, and the incidence of PAEs was lower compared with levetiracetam.

Perampanel in routine clinical use in idiopathic generalized epilepsy: The 12-month GENERAL study.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel across different seizure types in routine clinical care of patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE). METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective, 1-year observational study collected data from patient records at 21 specialist epilepsy units in Spain. All patients who were aged ≥12 years, prescribed perampanel before December 2016, and had a confirmed diagnosis of IGE were included. RESULTS: The population comprised 149 patients with IGE (60 with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, 51 generalized tonic-clonic seizures [GTCS] only, 21 juvenile absence epilepsy, 10 childhood absence epilepsy, 6 adulthood absence epilepsy, and one Jeavons syndrome). Mean age was 36 years. The retention rate at 12 months was 83% (124/149), and 4 mg was the most common dose. At 12 months, the seizure-free rate was 59% for all seizures (88/149); 63% for GTCS (72/115), 65% for myoclonic seizures (31/48), and 51% for absence seizures (24/47). Seizure frequency was reduced significantly at 12 months relative to baseline for GTCS (78%), myoclonic (65%), and absence seizures (48%). Increase from baseline seizure frequency was seen in 5.2% of patients with GTCS seizures, 6.3% with myoclonic, and 4.3% with absence seizures. Perampanel was effective regardless of epilepsy syndrome, concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), and prior AEDs, but retention and seizure freedom were significantly higher when used as early add-on (after ≤2 prior AEDs) than late (≥3 prior AEDs). Adverse events were reported in 50% of patients over 12 months, mostly mild or moderate, and irritability (23%), somnolence (15%), and dizziness (14%) were most frequent. SIGNIFICANCE: In routine clinical care of patients with IGE, perampanel improved seizure outcomes for GTCS, myoclonic seizures, and absence seizures, with few discontinuations due to adverse events. This is the first real-world evidence with perampanel across different seizure types in IGE.

Euro-Esli: a European audit of real-world use of eslicarbazepine acetate as a treatment for partial-onset seizures.

The Euro-Esli study was an exploratory pooled analysis of data from 14 European clinical practice studies, which was conducted to audit the real-world effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as an adjunctive treatment for partial-onset seizures. Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months of ESL treatment, and at the final visit. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout ESL treatment by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and ESL discontinuation due to AEs. Data from 2058 patients (52.1% male; mean age 44.0 years) were included. All 2058 patients were assessed for safety and 1975 (96.0%) patients were assessed for effectiveness. After 12 months, retention, responder (≥50% seizure frequency reduction), and seizure freedom rates were 73.4, 75.6, and 41.3%, respectively. AEs were reported for 34.0% of patients and led to discontinuation in 13.6% of patients. The most frequently reported AEs were dizziness (6.7% of patients), fatigue (5.4%), and somnolence (5.1%). No unexpected safety signals emerged over a median duration of follow-up of >5 years. Subgroup analyses revealed that ESL was significantly more effective in patients aged ≥65 versus <65 years, in patients who were not receiving treatment with other sodium channel blockers versus those who were receiving treatment with other sodium channel blockers, and in patients who were receiving <2 versus ≥2 concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. Euro-Esli is the largest ESL clinical practice study conducted to date. This study provides strong and reassuring evidence of ESL's safety profile, and complements the data from clinical trials.

NEOPLASM study: Real-life use of lacosamide in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: The choice of antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE) is complicated, and there are a lack of robust clinical trial data to date. METHODS: The NEOPLASM (Neuroncologic Patients treated with LAcoSaMide) study was a 6-month, multicenter, retrospective, observational study in patients with BTRE treated with lacosamide. Patients were started on lacosamide because of a lack of efficacy or adverse events (AEs) with prior AEDs or suitability versus other AEDs, according to clinical practice. The primary efficacy variable was the seizure-free rate at 6months. Safety variables included the proportion of patients with an AE and the proportion with an AE that led to discontinuation. RESULTS: Overall, 105 patients from 14 hospital centers were included in the analysis. Treatment with lacosamide for 6months resulted in a 30.8% seizure-free rate, and 66.3% of patients had a ≥50% seizure reduction (responders). In the subset of patients included because of a lack of efficacy with prior AEDs, seizure-free rates were 28.0%, and 66.7% of patients were responders. No statistically significant differences in efficacy were observed according to the mechanism of action or enzyme-inducing properties of concomitant AEDs. Adverse events were reported by 41.9% of patients at 6months, and 4.7% of them led to discontinuation. The most common AEs were somnolence/fatigue and dizziness. Notably, 57.1% of the patients who were switched to lacosamide because of AEs with their previous therapy did not report any AE at 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this open-label, observational study, lacosamide appeared to be effective and well tolerated in a large population of patients with BTRE. Lacosamide may therefore be a promising option for the treatment of patients with BTRE.

Early add-on lacosamide in a real-life setting: results of the REALLY study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many patients with epilepsy are treated with antiepileptic drug (AED) polytherapy. Several factors influence the choice of early add-on therapy, and deciding on the most appropriate drug can be difficult. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide as early add-on therapy in patients with partial-onset seizures. METHODS: REALLY (REtrospective study of lAcosamide as earLy add-on aLong one Year) was a multicenter, retrospective, 1-year, real-life study. Patients included were aged older than 16 years, had partial-onset seizures, and were treated with lacosamide as add-on therapy after one or two prior AEDs. Data were collected retrospectively from clinical records. The primary study objective was to assess the efficacy of lacosamide over 12 months (seizure-free and responder rates), and the secondary objective was to assess the tolerability of lacosamide at 3, 6, and 12 months [adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation]. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-nine patients were enrolled in the study; 89 patients (44.7 %) had tried one AED and 110 patients (55.3 %) had tried two AEDs before lacosamide. At 12 months, the proportion of patients who were seizure free was 44.9 %, and 76 % of patients were responders. The seizure-free rate at 12 months for patients who had previously received one or two AEDs was 58 and 34.3 %, and the responder rate at 12 months was 83.0 and 70.4 %, respectively. The AE rate was 21.5 % at 3 months, 27.1 % at 6 months, and 31.2 % at 12 months, with 7.0 % of patients discontinuing treatment because of an AE. The most common AE reported was dizziness (11.6 %). Cryptogenic epilepsy, a higher number of prior AEDs, and the use of a sodium channel blocker at onset were associated with a worse outcome. The number of concomitant AEDs decreased over 1 year (Z = 5.89; p < 0.001). Twenty-two patients were converted to lacosamide monotherapy with at least one evaluation ≥6 months from the beginning of monotherapy conversion. CONCLUSIONS: Lacosamide was effective and well tolerated as early add-on treatment in patients who had received one or two previous AEDs.

Control of seizures in different stages of partial epilepsy: LACO-EXP, a Spanish retrospective study of lacosamide.

Lacosamide is approved as adjunctive therapy for focal epilepsies. The number of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) tried is associated with prognosis. This multicenter, retrospective, observational study (LACO-EXP) in Spain in 500 adult patients with focal epilepsies examined the efficacy and tolerability of add-on lacosamide. Factors associated with better efficacy/tolerability were analyzed. After 12months, the responder rate (≥50% reduction in seizure frequency) was 57.1%, and the seizure-free rate was 14.9%. Efficacy was better when lacosamide was the first or second add-on AED, although there was a small chance to be seizure-free even for patients who had received ≤10 prior AEDs. The mechanism of action of concomitant AEDs is important in all the stages, but differences are smaller in the early stages. Lacosamide was generally well tolerated. A slower dosage-titration schedule was associated with a lower adverse event rate. Further investigation of the timing of initiation of lacosamide add-on therapy and ideal combinations of AEDs is required.