Arbidol, an antiviral drug, identified as a sodium channel blocker with anticonvulsant activity.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Sodium channel blockers (SCBs) have traditionally been utilized as anti-seizure medications by primarily targeting the inactivation process. In a drug discovery project aiming at finding potential anticonvulsants, we have identified arbidol, originally an antiviral drug, as a potent SCB. In order to evaluate its anticonvulsant potential, we have thoroughly examined its biophysical properties as well as its effects on animal seizure models. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Patch clamp recording was used to investigate the electrophysiological properties of arbidol, as well as the binding and unbinding kinetics of arbidol, carbamazepine and lacosamide. Furthermore, we evaluated the anticonvulsant effects of arbidol using three different seizure models in male mice. KEY RESULTS: Arbidol effectively suppressed neuronal epileptiform activity by blocking sodium channels. Arbidol demonstrated a distinct mode of action by interacting with both the fast and slow inactivation of Nav1.2 channels compared with carbamazepine and lacosamide. A kinetic study suggested that the binding and unbinding rates might be associated with the specific characteristics of these three drugs. Arbidol targeted the classical binding site of local anaesthetics, effectively inhibited the gain-of-function effects of Nav1.2 epileptic mutations and exhibited varying degrees of anticonvulsant effects in the maximal electroshock model and subcutaneous pentylenetetrazol model but had no effect in the pilocarpine-induced status epilepticus model. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Arbidol shows promising potential as an anticonvulsant agent, providing a unique mode of action that sets it apart from existing SCBs.

Clinical Experience With Lacosamide as an Adjunct Treatment for Neonatal Seizures: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.

BACKGROUND: Lacosamide (LCM) is a third-generation antiseizure medication (ASM) currently approved for the treatment of focal seizures in children aged greater than one month. There are limited data on its efficacy in the neonatal age group. We describe our experience with LCM as an adjunct ASM for the treatment of neonatal seizures. METHODS: A retrospective chart review over a five-year period (2018 to 2022) was conducted at Le Bonheur Children's Hospital to identify neonates with electroencephalography (EEG)-proven seizures who were treated with LCM. Data were collected on electroclinical seizure characteristics, underlying etiology, ASMs, treatment response, and any adverse effects. RESULTS: A total of 15 neonates with EEG-confirmed seizures who were treated with LCM were included. Ten neonates achieved seizure cessation after LCM was added to their ASM regimen consisting of phenobarbital, levetiracetam, or both. No new treatment-related adverse effects were noted. CONCLUSIONS: LCM is effective as an adjunct treatment for neonatal seizures. Randomized controlled studies are needed to establish its effectiveness and adequate dosing regimen in this population.

Effect of locosamide as an add-on therapy in the management of dissociative disorders.

The role of lacosamide (LCM) as add on treatment modality in dissociative disorders (DD) is of interest. It was a randomized control trial in which 300 patients diagnosed with dissociative disorders having treatment for the dissociative disorders were included. They were divided into two groups. Group one consisted of intervention group in which LCM was also administered along with conventional psychiatric medication for different dissociative disorders. Group two consisted of control group where the patients of dissociative disorders were found to have conventional medication. There was analysis of improvements in recovery of symptoms and quality of life. There was statistically significant increase in excellent, very good, good and fair quality of life and decrease in poor and satisfactory quality of life in intervention group after drug intervention. It was observed that symptoms of the patients improved in 50.67% cases in intervention group and 10.67% cases in control group. There was greater improvement in recovery of symptoms and quality of life in patients of DD in which LCM was administered as add on medication.

Case Report: Lacosamide unmasking SCN5A-associated Brugada syndrome in a young female with epilepsy.

Background: Lacosamide is frequently used as a mono- or adjunctive therapy for the treatment of adults with epilepsy. Although lacosamide is known to act on both neuronal and cardiac sodium channels, potentially leading to cardiac arrhythmias, including Brugada syndrome (BrS), its adverse effects in individuals with genetic susceptibility are less understood. Case: We report a 33-year-old female with underlying epilepsy who presented to the emergency department with a four-day history of seizure clusters, and was initially treated with lacosamide therapy. During the intravenous lacosamide infusion, the patient developed sudden cardiac arrest caused by ventricular arrhythmias necessitating resuscitation. Of note, the patient had a family history of sudden cardiac death. Workup including routine laboratory results, 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), echocardiogram, and coronary angiogram was non-specific. However, a characteristic type 1 Brugada ECG pattern was identified by ajmaline provocation testing; thus, confirming the diagnosis of BrS. Subsequently, the genotypic diagnosis was confirmed by Sanger sequencing, which revealed a heterozygous mutation (c.2893C>T, p.Arg965Cys) in the SCN5A gene. Eventually, the patient underwent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation and was discharged with full neurological recovery. Conclusion: This case highlights a rare but lethal adverse event associated with lacosamide treatment in patients with genetic susceptibility. Further research is warranted to investigate the interactions between lacosamide and SCN5A variants.

An update on pharmacotherapy for trigeminal neuralgia.

INTRODUCTION: Trigeminal neuralgia is a rare condition that can be effectively treated by carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine but these older drugs are associated with dose-dependent and potentially treatment-limiting adverse effects. Third-generation anticonvulsants, new calcitonin gene-related peptide blockers for migraine, and older drugs such as ketamine and cannabinoids may be promising adjuvants or monotherapeutic options. AREAS COVERED: The new drugs, their presumed mechanisms of action, safety and efficacy are discussed herein. There is a paucity of robust clinical evidence in support of these drugs for trigeminal neuralgia. New migraine agents are considered as well although migraines and trigeminal neuralgia are distinct, albeit similar, conditions. No new drugs have been released to market in recent years with the specific indication of trigeminal neuralgia. EXPERT OPINION: In real-world clinical practice, about half of trigeminal neuralgia patients take more than one agent for prevention and combination therapy may be the optimal approach. Combination therapy might allow for lower doses of carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine, thus reducing the number and severity of potential adverse events but the potential for pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions must be considered. Drug therapy for trigeminal neuralgia involves acute or abortive treatments, often administered in hospital versus long-term preventive therapy, usually involving oral agents.

Trigeminal neuralgia is a relatively rare condition that usually affects one side of the face below the eye around the cheekbone. The cause of trigeminal neuralgia is sometimes a damaged nerve or a nerve that has lost part of its outer protective sheath (myelin). However, trigeminal neuralgia may have other neurological causes as well. Pain can be triggered by touch, pressure, or chewing and it tends to occur in very painful brief attacks followed by pauses with little or no pain. There are two types of drug treatment for trigeminal neuralgia: drugs to stop an ongoing attack (which are often administered in an emergency room or hospital intravenously) and drugs that are taken orally over the long term to reduce or prevent attacks.The two most effective drugs for trigeminal neuralgia are carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine, which are actually drugs to prevent seizures. They are effective in reducing the pain intensity and number of attacks of trigeminal neuralgia but they have side effects. In fact, these side effects can be so severe that people stop taking the drugs.Many new drugs have come to market recently that may work for trigeminal neuralgia, although none was specifically developed for this use. The newest generation of anti-seizure medications including eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, levetiracetam, and retigabine, may be just as effective as the older carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine drugs with fewer side effects. Clinical studies are needed to test them in trigeminal neuralgia patients but their mechanisms of action suggest that they might work well.There are some new drugs developed for migraine headache that inhibit a substance in the body called CGRP. Migraine headaches and trigeminal neuralgia have some of the same symptoms but they are different conditions but both involve too much CGRP.Other new drugs include lasmiditan, pimozide (used for Tourette syndrome), tizanidine (muscle relaxant), lamotrigine and vixotrigine (anti-seizure drugs) may also be beneficial. It may be that people with trigeminal neuralgia will have to take combination therapy, the use of two or more drugs with different mechanisms of action. Older drugs like ketamine and cannabinoids are also being considered as possible add-on agents for therapy for trigeminal neuralgia.

A case of lacosamide and mirtazapine self-poisoning.

Lacosamide is a relatively new antiepileptic drug that exerts its anticonvulsant effect by selectively inactivating sodium channels. Since its launch, it has been used widely for the treatment of intractable epilepsy, but there are scant data on the toxic or lethal blood concentrations. Here, we report a case of drug poisoning following simultaneous high-dose self-administration of lacosamide and mirtazapine. We developed and validated an approach that uses liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray ionization-tandem mass spectrometry to determine the concentrations of lacosamide and mirtazapine in cadaveric blood, urine and liver. Calibration curves showed good linearity (r2 > 0.995), and our method enabled repeatable and accurate quantification, with intra- and inter-assay coefficients of variation not exceeding 10.9 % and 12.8 %, respectively, for each target drug. We used the method to measure the drug concentrations in the blood of a dead victim and found a lacosamide concentration of 91.9 µg/mL and a mirtazapine concentration of 12.0 µg/mL. The blood mirtazapine concentration was in the lethal range, and that of lacosamide was about 10 times the therapeutic range. The synergistically central nervous system depressive and cardiotoxic effects of these drugs may have contributed to the cause of death. We concluded that the cause of death in this case was lacosamide and mirtazapine poisoning.

Effectiveness and safety of Lacosamide in pediatric patients with epilepsy under four years: Results from a prospective cohort study in China.

BACKGROUND: Lacosamide (LCM) has shown promising efficacy and safety outcomes in clinical trials. However, the evidence is limited among pediatric patients especially under four years in real-world. The study investigated the treatment outcomes and safety of LCM in patients under four years based on the data of the epilepsy registry of Children in China. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted among patients under 4 years who newly received LCM as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy. The treatment outcomes were measured by retention rate of LCM, 50 % response rates and seizure-free rates during follow-up. The retention rate of LCM was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier survival model. Adverse events were reported as a percentage of all participants. RESULTS: Of 109 participants (mean follow-up: 18.6 months), 59 received LCM as monotherapy and 50 as adjunctive therapy. Sixty patients had focal epilepsy, 44 had generalized epilepsy and 5 had combined generalized and focal epilepsy. 70 % of patients in the monotherapy group and 41 % in the adjunctive therapy group remained on LCM treatment without additional treatments for at least one year. In patients with monotherapy, 50 % response rate and seizure-free rate were 75 % and 56 % at 12 months, respectively. In adjunctive therapy group, these rates were 51 % and 36 %, respectively. Lower baseline seizure frequency in both treatment groups (monotherapy: p < 0.001; adjunctive therapy: p = 0.02) and younger age groups within the monotherapy group (P = 0.04) correlated with a higher LCM retention rate. Adverse events were reported by 15 patients (13.8 %), with somnolence being the most common (7 of 15 patients). CONCLUSION: With a comprehensive information and high-quality of data, the study demonstrates the effective treatment outcome and safety of LCM. The study adds reliable evidence to exiting real-word evidence of LCM in the specific age group of patients with epilepsy to fill the evidence gap.

Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study on Safety and Electroencephalographic Response to Lacosamide for Neonatal Seizures.

BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of lacosamide in older children. However, minimal data are available for neonates. We aimed to determine the incidence of adverse events associated with lacosamide use and explore the electroencephalographic seizure response to lacosamide in neonates. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from seven pediatric hospitals from January 2009 to February 2020. For safety outcomes, neonates were followed for ≤30 days from index date. Electroencephalographic response of lacosamide was evaluated based on electroencephalographic reports for ≤3 days. RESULTS: Among 47 neonates, 98% received the first lacosamide dose in the intensive care units. During the median follow-up of 12 days, 19% of neonates died, and the crude incidence rate per 1000 patient-days (95% confidence interval) of the adverse events by diagnostic categories ranged from 2.8 (0.3, 10.2) for blood or lymphatic system disorders and nervous system disorders to 10.5 (4.2, 21.6) for cardiac disorders. Electroencephalographic seizures were observed in 31 of 34 patients with available electroencephalographic data on the index date. There was seizure improvement in 29% of neonates on day 1 and also in 29% of neonates on day 2. On day 3, there was no change in 50% of neonates and unknown change in 50% of neonates. CONCLUSIONS: The results are reassuring regarding the safety of lacosamide in neonates. Although some neonates had fewer seizures after lacosamide administration, the lack of a comparator arm and reliance on qualitative statements in electroencephalographic reports limit the preliminary efficacy results.

Clinical Analysis of Lacosamide Monotherapy in the Treatment of Self-Limited Epilepsy with Centrotemporal Spikes.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lacosamide (LCM) monotherapy in the treatment of self-limited epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes (SeLECTS). Methods: In this study, 89 children with SeLECTS who were treated with LCM monotherapy in the Children's Hospital Affiliated to Soochow University from June 2019 to June 2021 were included. Clinical seizures and spike wave index (SWI) on video EEG during slow-wave sleep were evaluated before and after treatment. The role of LCM monotherapy in improving SWI, controlling clinical seizures and improving cognition was analyzed, and corresponding adverse reactions were documented. Results: There were 52 males and 37 females in this group, with an average age of 7.6 ± 2.1 years. The total effective rate was 93.83% and at 18 months of treatment, the cumulative control rate was 85.19%, the retention rate was 91.01% and the effective rate in terms of EEG spike index was 72.92%, all of which showed a high rate; there was no statistically significant difference in intelligence quotient before and after treatment (P > 0.05). In addition, it was found in the study that the earlier the age of onset, the less obvious the improvement in SWI after LCM treatment; the lower the baseline seizure frequency, the more significant the improvement in SWI after LCM treatment. Conclusion: LCM monotherapy had curative effect and adverse reactions for SeLECTS, with no negative impact on cognition. These significant findings indicate that LCM is likely to become a widely prescribed ASM for the treatment of SeLECTS. Meanwhile, the onset age and baseline seizure frequency had certain value in judging prognosis and predicting curative effect.

Lacosamide extended-release capsules are bioequivalent to lacosamide immediate-release tablets: Pharmacokinetic observations and simulations.

OBJECTIVES: Assess the bioequivalence of lacosamide extended-release (XR) capsules and immediate-release (IR) tablets and answer real-world clinical questions regarding the use of lacosamide XR. METHODS: An open-label, randomized, two-treatment, two-sequence, oral comparative bioavailability study was conducted to assess the bioequivalence of two lacosamide formulations. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive lacosamide XR capsules (400 mg once-daily) or IR tablets (200 mg twice-daily) in 1 of 2 sequences over 7-day periods. Primary outcome was the area under the lacosamide concentration-time curve over 24 h at steady-state (AUC0-τ,ss). Secondary outcomes were maximum (Cmax,ss) and minimum concentrations at steady-state (Cmin,ss). Bioequivalence was established when 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for geometric least square means ratios (GLSMs) were between 80% and 125%. Adverse events (AEs) and other safety outcomes were also assessed. Pharmacokinetic simulations, including adherent and partially adherent dosing scenarios with XR and IR formulations, modeled the clinical use of lacosamide XR. RESULTS: Thirty-five healthy adult males were enrolled in the bioequivalence study. After 7 days of study drug, mean AUC0-τ,ss, Cmax,ss, and Cmin,ss values were similar between XR and IR formulations; all 90% CIs for GLSMs were between 80% and 125%. AEs were mild and no serious AEs or other clinically significant safety findings were observed. Pharmacokinetic simulations suggested that partial adherence affected formulations similarly; and the best strategy for switching formulations was to take the morning lacosamide IR dose followed by the evening lacosamide XR dose, as this resulted in the most consistent lacosamide plasma concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily lacosamide XR capsules were bioequivalent to twice-daily lacosamide IR tablets. Pharmacokinetic simulations indicated lacosamide XR and IR formulations were similarly affected by partial adherence, though once-daily dosing with lacosamide XR may offer clinical advantages, and formulations can be easily switched. These results support the use of lacosamide XR capsules as a once-daily alternative to lacosamide IR tablets.

Safety, Tolerability, and Dose-Limiting Toxicity of Lacosamide in Patients With Painful Chronic Pancreatitis: Protocol for a Phase 1 Clinical Trial to Determine Safety and Identify Side Effects.

BACKGROUND: Chronic abdominal pain is the hallmark symptom of chronic pancreatitis (CP), with 50% to 80% of patients seeking medical attention for pain control. Although several management options are available, outcomes are often disappointing, and opioids remain a mainstay of therapy. Opioid-induced hyperalgesia is a phenomenon resulting in dose escalation, which may occur partly because of the effects of opioids on voltage-gated sodium channels associated with pain. Preclinical observations demonstrate that the combination of an opioid and the antiseizure drug lacosamide diminishes opioid-induced hyperalgesia and improves pain control. OBJECTIVE: In this phase 1 trial, we aim to determine the safety, tolerability, and dose-limiting toxicity of adding lacosamide to opioids for the treatment of painful CP and assess the feasibility of performance of a pilot study of adding lacosamide to opioid therapy in patients with CP. As an exploratory aim, we will assess the efficacy of adding lacosamide to opioid therapy in patients with painful CP. METHODS: Using the Bayesian optimal interval design, we will conduct a dose-escalation trial of adding lacosamide to opioid therapy in patients with painful CP enrolled in cohorts of size 3. The initial dose will be 50 mg taken orally twice a day, followed by incremental increases to a maximum dose of 400 mg/day, with lacosamide administered for 7 days at each dose level. Adverse events will be documented according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 5.0). RESULTS: As of December 2023, we have currently enrolled 6 participants. The minimum number of participants to be enrolled is 12 with a maximum of 24. We expect to publish the results by March 2025. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will test the feasibility of the study design and provide reassurance regarding the tolerability and safety of opioids in treating painful CP. It is anticipated that lacosamide will prove to be safe and well tolerated, supporting a subsequent phase 2 trial assessing the efficacy of lacosamide+opioid therapy in patients with painful CP, and that lacosamide combined with opiates will lower the opioid dose necessary for pain relief and improve the safety profile of opioid use in treating painful CP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05603702; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05603702. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/50513.

The effect of lacosamide on calcitonin gene-related peptide serum level in episodic migraine patients: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Migraine affects 11-15% of people worldwide, and the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is released during the migraine attack, producing pulsating pain of migraine. Also, lacosamide reacts with collapsin-response mediator protein 2, preventing its phosphorylation and leading to the inhibition of CGRP release in the trigeminal system. OBJECTIVE: The primary outcome was the difference in the serum level of CGRP-LI after three months of treatment with either lacosamide and ibuprofen or ibuprofen alone in episodic migraine patients. The secondary outcomes were assessing safety and efficacy of lacosamide in episodic migraine patients. METHODS: We conducted an open-label randomized controlled trial on episodic migraine patients aged 10-55 years diagnosed according to (ICHD-3) in Kafr El-Sheikh University Hospital, Egypt. We assessed serum levels of CGRP-LI before and three months after treatment in our two groups, the lacosamide, and the control groups. We also assessed the side effects of treatment in each group, the percentage of patients who achieved ≥ 50% reduction in the migraine monthly days (MMD) frequency and the percentage of patients who achieved pain freedom within 2 h in ≥ 4 of 5 attacks in each group. RESULTS: 200 episodic migraine patients completed the study. There was a statistically significantly higher reduction in the serum CGRP-LI level in the lacosamide group compared with the control group. In addition, lacosamide was well tolerated by patients. Also, the lacosamide group had statistically significant higher percentage of patients who achieved ≥ 50% reduction in the migraine monthly days (MMD) frequency and pain freedom within two hours in ≥ 4 of 5 attacks with P-values 0.002, 0.02 respectively. CONCLUSION: The daily use of lacosamide 50 mg Bid for three months in episodic migraine patients was associated with a significant reduction in serum CGRP-LI, better clinical outcomes regarding frequency and duration of migraine attacks, and was well tolerated by patients. These results were derived from an open-label pilot study that needed to be thoroughly investigated by a large-scale, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. TRIAL REGISTRATION:  We registered our trial on ClinicalTrials.gov, named after "The Lacosamide's Effect on Calcitonin Gene-related Peptide in Migraine Patients," and with a clinical trial number (NCT05632133)-August 8, 2023.

The efficacy and safety of novel antiepileptic drugs in treatment of epilepsy of patients with brain tumors.

Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of novel antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in treating epilepsy in patients with brain tumors (BTRE). Methods: A search was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to February 2023, with English language restriction. Results: In this meta-analysis, 18 clinical trials involving 755 BTRE patients were included to assess the efficacy and safety of novel AEDs in BTRE treatment. At the last follow-up, a ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency was experienced by 72% of patients (random-effects model, 95% CI = 0.64-0.78) using novel AEDs. At the last follow-up, seizure freedom was experienced by 34% of patients (random-effects model, 95% CI = 0.28-0.41) using novel AEDs. The pooled incidence of AEs was found to be 19% (95% CI: 13%-26%), with a withdrawal rate due to adverse effects of only 3%. Comparable efficacy and incidence of adverse effects were observed between lacosamide and perampanel. Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that novel antiepileptic drugs are deemed effective for seizure control in brain tumor patients, particularly when used as adjunctive therapy. Although lacosamide and perampanel received more focus in studies, no significant difference was observed in the efficacy and adverse reactions of these two drugs in seizure control. Further randomized controlled trials are deemed necessary to validate our findings.

Effects of Levetiracetam and Lacosamide on survival and seizure control in IDH-wild type glioblastoma during temozolomide plus radiation adjuvant therapy.

Introduction: There are no clear indications for the best choice of anti-seizure medications to control brain tumor related epilepsy. In vitro studies have shown an antitumoral effect of Levetiracetam and Lacosamide on glioblastoma IDH-wild type. Research question: This study investigates whether the use of levetiracetam and/or lacosamide impacts survival rates. The secondary aim was to evaluate the efficacy of both ASMs in controlling seizures. Materials and methods: In this observational retrospective single-cohort study, patients underwent chemoradiation protocol after GBM surgery. They were grouped as follows: (1) use of levetiracetam, (2) use of lacosamide, (3) simultaneous use of levetiracetam and lacosamide, (4) no ASM usage. Survival curves were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method coupled with a log-rank test for difference assesments. To evaluate the pharmacological efficacy of post-operative seizure control, a negative binomial regression was conducted. Results: The study included 272 patients, 174 of which underwent adjuvant chemoradiation treatment. Patients without ASM therapy had a non-significant longer median OS (compared to the other groups (log-rank = 0.37). The IRR of seizure relapse was 2.57 (p = 0.007) times higher in lacosamide users, and MGMT promoter methylation demonstrated a protective effect against postoperative seizure onset (p = 0.05), regardless of the aforementioned confounding factors. Discussion and conclusions: In patients diagnosed with GBM IDH-WT undergoing chemoradiation therapy, the use of levetiracetam or lacosamide for controlling BTRE does not seem to modify survival. Lacosamide users exhibited a higher IRR of postoperative seizures compared to levetiracetam users, and MGMT promoter methylation appears to be a protective factor.

Clinical observation and analysis of rash caused by lacosamide in children with epilepsy.

PURPOSE: To draw clinical attention to rashes caused by lacosamide. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included patients admitted to the Department of Pediatrics, Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University between January 2021 and September 2023. We focused on patients who developed rashes after lacosamide treatment and analyzed all patients who exhibited rashes after lacosamide treatment to analyze the risk factors. RESULTS: In total, 190 patients received lacosamide, of whom four developed allergies (2.1 %). Three patients had severe rashes, and two patients had high fever. All of these adverse events improved after the withdrawal of lacosamide. Of the 13 patients reported to date, including the four patients in this study, eight used various antiseizure medicines, including seven patients who used four or more antiseizure medicines. Four patients underwent testing for HLA-B*1502, and two patients were positive. Patients developed rashes within 1-10 days after treatment initiation, and the duration of the rash ranged 2-37 days. CONCLUSIONS: Lacosamide-induced rash was detected in 2.1 % of patients in our cohort. Rashes are potentially serious, and prompt evaluation is required. Rashes are more likely to occur when multiple antiseizure medicines are used simultaneously, typically within 10 days of treatment initiation.

Outcomes following exposure to lacosamide monotherapy during pregnancy and breastfeeding - a prospective case series.

AIM OF THE STUDY: To evaluate the safety of lacosamide (LCM) monotherapy during pregnancy and breastfeeding. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients taking LCM monotherapy treated at the university epilepsy clinic were prospectively followed up during pregnancy, delivery, and breastfeeding. Data on seizure frequency, LCM dosage, pregnancy course, delivery and breastfeeding, birth outcome, congenital malformation, and development of newborns was collected. RESULTS: Four pregnancies in three patients with refractory focal epilepsy treated with LCM monotherapy were reported. One of these pregnancies ended in a miscarriage during the seventh week of gestation. The average daily LCM dose at the time of conception was 300 mg. Treatment with LCM was continued throughout pregnancy and breastfeeding. The dose of LCM was increased in two pregnancies: in one case following a seizure relapse, and in the other case as a preventive measure to avoid an increase in seizure frequency. Seizure frequency remained stable during pregnancy in two cases. All deliveries were carried out via caesarean section, with an average gestational age at birth of 37.6 weeks. The Apgar score was 10 in all newborns, and no congenital malformations were detected. At the age of 12 months, normal developmental milestones were reached. Infants were breastfed without any complications. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This case series adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting the relative safety of LCM monotherapy throughout pregnancy and breastfeeding.

Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling of Lacosamide in Patients With Hepatic and Renal Impairment and Pediatric Populations to Support Pediatric Dosing Optimization.

PURPOSE: Lacosamide (LCM) is a new-generation anti-seizure medication that is efficacious in patients with focal seizures with or without secondary generalization. Until now, the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of LCM are still lacking in Chinese epilepsy patients, particularly for pediatric populations and patients with renal or hepatic impairment. METHODS: This study was conducted to develop a physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model to characterize the pharmacokinetics of LCM in Chinese populations and predict the pharmacokinetics of LCM in Chinese pediatric populations and patients with renal or hepatic impairment. Using data from clinical investigations, the developed PBPK model was validated by comparing predicted and observed blood concentration data. FINDINGS: Doses should be reduced to approximately 82%, 75%, 63%, and 76% of the Chinese healthy adult dose in patients with mild, moderate, and severe renal impairment and end-stage renal disease; and approximately 89%, 72%, and 36% of the Chinese healthy adult dose in patients with Child Pugh-A, B, and C hepatic impairment. For pediatric populations, intravenous doses should be adjusted to 1.75 mg/kg for newborns, 2.5 mg/kg for toddlers, 2.2 mg/kg mg for preschool and school age, and 2 mg/kg mg for adolescents to achieve an equivalent plasma exposure of 2 mg/kg LCM in adults. The oral doses should be adjusted to 20 mg for toddlers, 32 mg for preschool, 45 mg for school age, and 95 mg for adolescents to achieve an approximately equivalent plasma exposure of 100 mg LCM in adults. IMPLICATIONS: The PBPK model of LCM can be utilized to optimize dosage regimens for special populations.

Antiepileptic Strategies for Patients with Primary and Metastatic Brain Tumors.

OPINION STATEMENT: Seizure activity is common in patients with primary and metastatic brain tumors, affecting more than 50% of cases over the course of their disease. Several mechanisms contribute to brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE), including a pro-inflammatory environment, excessive secretion of glutamate and an increase in neuronal excitatory tone, reduction of GABAergic inhibitory activity, and an increase in 2-hydroxygluturate production in isocitrate dehydrogenase mutant tumors. After a verified seizure in a brain tumor patient, the consensus is that BTRE has developed, and it is necessary to initiate an antiepileptic drug (AED). It is not recommended to initiate AED prophylaxis. Second- and third-generation AEDs are the preferred options for initiation, due to a lack of hepatic enzyme induction and reduced likelihood for drug-drug interactions, especially in regard to neoplastic treatment. The efficacy of appropriate AEDs for patients with BTRE is fairly equivalent, although some data suggests that levetiracetam may be slightly more active in suppressing seizures than other AEDs. The consensus among most Neuro-Oncology providers is to initiate levetiracetam monotherapy after a first seizure in a brain tumor patient, as long as the patient does not have any psychiatric co-morbidities. If levetiracetam is not tolerated well or is ineffective, other appropriate initial AED options for monotherapy or as an add-on anticonvulsant include lacosamide, valproic acid, briviracetam, lamotrigine, and perampanel.

Risk assessment of arrhythmias related to three antiseizure medications: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis.

Objective: Antiseizure medications (ASMs) are first line therapy for seizure disorders. Their effects on arrhythmias, especially the risk of arrhythmias associated with lacosamide (LCM), levetiracetam (LEV), and perampanel (PER), have been intensely investigated. Methods: We searched four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) until August 6, 2023. We used a common effects model and reported data as pooled incidence with 95% CIs. Meta-analyses were conducted to elucidate the risk of arrhythmias with different drugs, and Egger's regression was performed to detect publication bias analysis. Results: We included 11 clinical trials with 1,031 participants. The pooled incidence of arrhythmias in the LEV group was 0.005 (95% CI: 0.001-0.013), while it was 0.014 in the LCM group (95% CI: 0.003-0.030). Publication bias analyses indicated no significant bias in the LEV group (t = 0.02, df = 4, p-value = 0.9852) but a significant bias in the LCM group (t = 5.94, df = 3, p-value = 0.0095). We corrected for this bias in the LCM group using the trim-and-fill method, which yielded a similar pooled incidence of 0.0137 (95% CI: 0.0036-0.0280), indicating good reliability. Due to insufficient studies, we could not conduct a meta-analysis for PER, and we analyzed them in our systematic review. Conclusion: The use of LCM significantly elevated the risk of arrhythmias, while LEV had non-significant arrhythmogenic effects. As for the arrhythmogenic effects of PER, more clinical trials are needed in the future.

How to handle a missed or delayed dose of lacosamide in pediatric patients with epilepsy? a mode-informed individual dosing.

This study aims to investigate the effects on the pharmacokinetic (PK) of lacosamide (LCM), and to guide the individual dosing regimens for children and ones with poor medication adherence. Population PK research was performed based on 164 plasma samples of 113 pediatric patients aged from 1.75 to 14.42 years old. The PK characteristic of LCM was developed by a one-compartment model with first-order elimination. The typical value of apparent clearance (CL) and apparent volume of distribution (Vd) was 1.91 L·h-1 and 56.53 L respectively. In the final model, the variability of CL was significantly associated with the body surface area (BSA) and elevated uric acid (UA) level. In contrast, the impact of some prevalent anti-seizure medicines, such as valproic acid, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, and perampanel, and gene polymorphisms of Cytochrome P450 (CYP)2C19, ATP-binding cassette (ABC)B1, and ABCC2 had no clinical significance on the PK parameters of LCM. BSA-based dosing regimen of LCM was provided according to Monte Carlo simulation approach; while the dosage should reduce half in patients with an UA level of more than 400 µmol·L-1 comparing with an UA level of 100 µmol·L-1. Individualize remedial doses of about 0.5- to 1.5-fold of regular doses were recommended in six common scenarios of missed or delayed doses, that depended on the delayed time. In current study, the population PK model of LCM in children with epilepsy was developed successfully. The BSA-based dosing regimen and individualized remedial strategy were recommended to guarantee the precise administration of LCM.