Effects of lacosamide and carbamazepine on lipids in a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: The effects of anticonvulsants on lipids are the subject of considerable concern and investigation, but there are almost no data on this issue from randomized trials. We evaluated serum lipid profiles in adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy, following randomization to lacosamide (LCM) or carbamazepine (CBZ) monotherapy. METHODS: We analyzed data from a Phase 3, international, randomized, double-blind trial of LCM vs CBZ for the initial treatment of focal epilepsy. Serum lipid profiles in patients not taking lipid-lowering agents and providing blood samples under fasting conditions before treatment, and following 3 or 12 months of treatment with LCM or CBZ at various doses were analyzed. RESULTS: At 12 months, 271 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria for the analysis. No change was observed in LCM-treated patients for total cholesterol, cholesterol fractions, or triglycerides. CBZ-treated patients showed an increase of 21.1 mg/dL in total cholesterol, 12.6 mg/dL in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, 12.5 mg/dL in non-high density lipoprotein (non-HDL) cholesterol, and 8.5 mg/dL in HDL cholesterol; triglycerides remained unchanged. The proportion of patients with elevated total cholesterol levels (above the upper limit of the reference range) did not change in the LCM treatment group (37.0% at Baseline; 34.8% at 12 months), but increased from 30.8% (at Baseline) to 49.6% (at 12 months) in the CBZ treatment group. SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides Class II evidence that CBZ elevates serum lipids, whereas LCM has no effect on lipids. It supports LCM as an appropriate choice for new-onset focal epilepsy.

Effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam in patients with focal seizures: Second interim analysis of 6-month data from a prospective observational study in Europe.

Brivaracetam (BRV) is indicated for adjunctive treatment of focal (partial-onset) seizures with or without secondary generalisation in patients 4 years of age and older in the European Union (EU). An ongoing 12-month, prospective, non-interventional post-marketing study (EP0077; NCT02687711) is collecting real-world information on patients receiving treatment with adjunctive BRV in Europe. In this study, BRV is prescribed according to routine clinical practice and the EU Summary of Product Characteristics. This second interim analysis assessed effectiveness, tolerability and health-related quality of life outcomes for up to 6 months of treatment. At the cut-off date (13 April 2018), 266 patients from five countries had attended Visit 1, 24.1 % (64/266) had completed the study, 37.6 % (100/266) were ongoing, and 38.3 % (102/266) had discontinued. In total, 261 patients had at least one dose of BRV and were included in the analyses. Patients had a mean time since epilepsy diagnosis of 23.2 years, a mean of eight lifetime AEDs (sum of AEDs discontinued prior to study entry and concomitant at study entry), and a median of five focal seizures per 28 days during the 3-month retrospective Baseline. 66.3 % of patients initiated BRV at a dose within the recommended starting range (50-100 mg/day) and 87.1 % of patients received BRV modal doses within the recommended dose range (50-200 mg/day) during the study. Retention rates were 79.1 % (N = 239) at 3 months and 62.1 % (N = 211) at 6 months. The 50 % responder rates for focal seizures were 46.8 % (N = 139) at 3 months and 53.6 % (N = 97) at 6 months. The proportions of patients who were seizure-free were 10.7 % (21/196) and 7.5 % (15/199) at 3 and 6 months of treatment, respectively. Median percent reductions in focal seizure frequency per 28 days from Baseline to 3 and 6 months were 34.6 % (N = 139) and 53.3 % (N = 97), respectively. Overall, 44.2 % of patients had an improvement and 15.4 % had a worsening in Patient Weighted Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory-Form 31 total score from Baseline to 6 months (N = 52). At least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was reported in 51.0 % (133/261) of patients, and 34.5 % (90/261) of patients had drug-related TEAEs. The most common drug-related TEAEs (≥5% of patients) were drug ineffective (7.7 %), seizure (6.5 %), and fatigue (6.1 %). In this 6-month interim analysis, BRV showed effectiveness when used in clinical practice in five European countries. BRV was well tolerated, and no new safety signals were observed.

Effectiveness and tolerability of lacosamide as add-on therapy in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy: Results from a prospective, noninterventional study in European clinical practice (VIBES).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of lacosamide added to one or two antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in the treatment of patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE), and to evaluate patients' global impression of change and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, noninterventional study with a 6-month observation period (EP0045; NCT02276053). Eligible patients (≥16 years old) had active BTRE secondary to low-grade glioma (World Health Organization grade 1 and 2) and were receiving treatment with one or two AEDs at baseline. Lacosamide was initiated by the treating physician in the course of routine clinical practice. Primary outcomes were 50% responders (≥50% reduction in focal seizure frequency from baseline) and Patient's Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at month 6. Secondary outcomes included seizure-free status and Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at month 6, change in QoL (5-Level EuroQol-5 Dimension Quality of Life Assessment) and symptom outcomes (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor) from baseline to month 6, and Kaplan-Meier estimated 6-month retention on lacosamide. Safety variables included adverse drug reactions (ADRs). RESULTS: Patients were recruited from 24 sites in Europe. Ninety-three patients received lacosamide (mean [standard deviation] age = 44.5 [14.7] years; 50 [53.8%] male; median baseline focal seizure frequency = five seizures/28 days [range = 1-280]), of whom 79 (84.9%) completed the study. At 6 months, 66 of 86 (76.7%) patients were 50% responders and 30 of 86 (34.9%) were seizure-free. Improvements on PGIC were reported by 49 of 76 (64.5%) patients. Based on CGIC, 52 of 81 (64.2%) patients improved. QoL and symptoms outcome measures remained stable. Kaplan-Meier estimated 6-month retention rate was 86.0% (N = 93). Fifteen (16.1%) patients reported ADRs; four (4.3%) had ADRs leading to discontinuation (N = 93). SIGNIFICANCE: Results of this prospective, noninterventional study suggest that add-on lacosamide is effective and generally well tolerated in patients with BTRE.

Tolerability and efficacy of lacosamide and controlled-release carbamazepine monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy and concomitant psychiatric conditions: Post hoc analysis of a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial.

Psychiatric comorbidities are common in patients with epilepsy. A double-blind noninferiority monotherapy trial (SP0993; NCT01243177) enrolled newly diagnosed patients (≥16 years) with focal or generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Patients were randomized 1:1 to lacosamide or carbamazepine controlled-release (carbamazepine-CR). Here, we report data from an exploratory post hoc analysis of patients who reported ongoing psychiatric conditions (Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities System Organ Class). Of 886 treated patients in the trial, 126 (14.2%; 64 on lacosamide; 62 on carbamazepine-CR) reported at least one ongoing psychiatric condition at screening, most commonly depression (38.1%), insomnia (27.8%), and anxiety (26.2%). In this subgroup, 32/64 (50.0%) patients on lacosamide and 22/62 (35.5%) on carbamazepine-CR completed the trial. The most common reasons for discontinuation in patients on lacosamide and carbamazepine-CR were adverse events (10.9%, 24.2%) and lack of efficacy (18.8%, 11.3%). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 52 (81.3%) of patients on lacosamide and 56 (90.3%) of patients on carbamazepine-CR, most commonly (≥10% patients in either treatment group; lacosamide, carbamazepine-CR) dizziness (12.5%, 16.1%), headache (12.5%, 14.5%), nasopharyngitis (12.5%, 9.7%), fatigue (7.8%, 14.5%), nausea (7.8%, 11.3%), somnolence (1.6%, 12.9%), and gamma-glutamyltransferase increase (1.6%, 12.9%). Overall, 15 (23.4%) lacosamide-treated and 10 (16.1%) carbamazepine-CR treated patients reported psychiatric TEAEs, most commonly (≥3 patients in either treatment group; lacosamide, carbamazepine-CR) depression (4.7%, 0) and anxiety (3.1%, 6.5%). There were no reports of psychotic disorder, epileptic psychosis, acute psychosis, or serious psychiatric TEAEs. Stratified Kaplan-Meier estimates for 6- and 12-month seizure freedom at the last evaluated dose were similar with lacosamide and carbamazepine-CR (6 months 81.0%, 75.6%; 12 months 62.5%, 66.6%). A higher proportion of patients on lacosamide than carbamazepine-CR completed 6 (67.2%, 45.2%) and 12 months (50.0%, 37.1%) of treatment at the last evaluated dose without a seizure. This exploratory post hoc analysis indicated that lacosamide monotherapy was efficacious and generally well tolerated in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy and concomitant psychiatric conditions. In this subpopulation, lacosamide showed similar efficacy and numerically better effectiveness than carbamazepine-CR.

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

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

Changes in drug load during lacosamide combination therapy: A noninterventional, observational study in German and Austrian clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION: Effects of antiepileptic drug (AED) load changes in patients with focal seizures have not been well evaluated. METHODS: SP1065 (NCT01673282) was a noninterventional, prospective, observational study conducted in a clinical practice setting. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with focal seizures were enrolled within 7 days of being prescribed adjunctive lacosamide. Observation period was ~6 months. Drug load was assessed using percentage change in ratio of actual prescribed dose and World Health Organization defined daily dose (DDD) for concomitant AEDs and all AEDs (including lacosamide). Subgroups were defined for patients with at least one concomitant sodium channel-blocking AED (SCB [+]) and those without (SCB [-]). RESULTS: A total of 311 patients were assessed for safety, 302 for measurement of drug load, and 240 for effectiveness. Ratio of AED dose to DDD decreased for concomitant AEDs (-9.6%) and increased for all AEDs (including lacosamide; 15.5%). Median reduction in focal seizure frequency per 28 days was 100% (range: -100, 2275.8). 70.4% and 61.7% of patients had a ≥50% or ≥75% reduction in seizure frequency, respectively; 50.8% became seizure-free. In the SCB (+) subgroup (n = 149), ratio of AED dose to DDD decreased for concomitant AEDs (-15.0%) and increased for all AEDs (10.7%). In the SCB (-) subgroup (n = 153), ratio of AED dose to DDD decreased for concomitant AEDs (-4.4%) and increased for all AEDs (20.2%). Fifty-seven patients (18.3%) reported ADRs, most commonly dose >400 mg/d (7.1%). Seventeen patients (5.5%) had ADRs leading to discontinuation. SIGNIFICANCE: Addition of lacosamide resulted in reduction of concomitant AED drug load regardless of whether concomitant AEDs were SCB (+) or SCB (-). These results indicate that addition of lacosamide in patients with focal seizures could allow clinicians to withdraw or reduce the dose of less well-tolerated or less effective AEDs.

Adjunctive lacosamide for focal epilepsy: an open-label trial evaluating the impact of flexible titration and dosing on safety and seizure outcomes.

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of lacosamide in a real-life setting with the use of a flexible dose titration schedule and individualised maintenance doses up to the maximum approved dose of 400 mg/day. Adults with a diagnosis of focal seizures, with or without secondary generalization, were enrolled in this open-label Phase IV trial (NCT01235403). Lacosamide was initiated at 100 mg/day (50 mg bid) and uptitrated over a 12-week period to 200, 300 or 400 mg/day, based on safety and seizure control. Although dose increases were to be in increments of 100 mg/day, intermediate doses were permitted at each escalation step for one week for patients known to be particularly sensitive to starting new AEDs. After receiving a stable, effective dose for three weeks, patients entered the 12-week maintenance period. Primary outcomes were incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and withdrawal due to TEAEs. Seizure outcomes, all secondary, were median focal seizure frequency, ≥50% reduction in focal seizure frequency, and seizure freedom. One hundred patients with a mean age of 44 years were enrolled and 74 completed the trial. The incidence of TEAEs was 64.0% (n=100), with the most frequently reported (≥5% of patients) being dizziness, headache, and asthenia. Fourteen patients withdrew due to TEAEs, most frequently due to dizziness (six patients; 6.0%), vomiting (two patients; 2%), and tremor (two patients; 2%). Among patients with baseline and maintenance phase seizure data (n=75), median reduction in focal seizure frequency from baseline was 69.7% and the ≥50% responder rate was 69.3%. Among 74 patients who completed the maintenance phase, 21 (28.4%) were seizure-free. Flexible lacosamide dosing in this open-label trial was associated with a favourable tolerability and safety profile; the nature of the TEAEs was consistent with that observed in previous pivotal trials. Treatment with lacosamide was also associated with effective seizure control.

Safety and tolerability of lacosamide monotherapy in the elderly: A subgroup analysis from lacosamide trials in diabetic neuropathic pain.

Objective: To assess the safety profile of lacosamide monotherapy in elderly (≥65 years) subjects with diabetic neuropathic pain (DNP). Methods: Of 1,863 DNP subjects in double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of lacosamide monotherapy (NCT00861445, NCT00235469, NCT00238524, NCT00135109, NCT00350103), 502 were elderly. Safety data from elderly subjects were compared with that of younger subjects (<65 years) within these DNP trials. It should be noted that lacosamide is approved for the treatment of focal (partial-onset) seizures; it is not approved/recommended for the treatment of DNP. Results: Overall, cardiovascular diseases were prevalent in the DNP population, as was the use of cardiac, blood pressure, diabetes, and cholesterol-lowering medications among both young and elderly subjects. The most frequently reported adverse events (AEs) for lacosamide monotherapy (200, 400, and 600 mg/day combined) in elderly versus younger subjects were dizziness (16.2% vs. 13.2%), nausea (10.0% vs. 9.4%), and headache (8.0% vs. 8.7%). Incidences of cardiac disorder AEs were higher in elderly versus younger subjects receiving placebo (6.2% vs. 3.9%), lacosamide 200 (4.8% vs. 3.3%), lacosamide 400 (7.0% vs. 4.1%), and lacosamide 600 mg/day (7.7% vs. 4.0%). Discontinuation rates because of any AE in the elderly versus younger subjects were similar for placebo (8.8% vs. 7.0%) and lacosamide 200 mg/day (9.6% vs. 11.9%) and higher for lacosamide 400 (25.1% vs. 10.8%) and lacosamide 600 mg/day (52.7% vs. 28.3%). Significance: Lacosamide monotherapy was well tolerated in elderly subjects with DNP, with an overall AE profile consistent with that reported in epilepsy trials.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of lacosamide monotherapy versus controlled-release carbamazepine in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy: a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Further options for monotherapy are needed to treat newly diagnosed epilepsy in adults. We assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of lacosamide as a first-line monotherapy option for these patients. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial, patients from 185 epilepsy or general neurology centres in Europe, North America, and the Asia Pacific region, aged 16 years or older and with newly diagnosed epilepsy were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio, via a computer-generated code, to receive lacosamide monotherapy or controlled-release carbamazepine (carbamazepine-CR) twice daily. Patients, investigators, and trial personnel were masked to treatment allocation. From starting doses of 100 mg/day lacosamide or 200 mg/day carbamazepine-CR, uptitration to the first target level of 200 mg/day and 400 mg/day, respectively, took place over 2 weeks. After a 1-week stabilisation period, patients entered a 6-month assessment period. If a seizure occurred, the dose was titrated to the next target level (400 or 600 mg/day for lacosamide and 800 or 1200 mg/day for carbamazepine-CR) over 2 weeks with a 1-week stabilisation period, and the 6-month assessment period began again. Patients who completed 6 months of treatment and remained seizure-free entered a 6-month maintenance period on the same dose. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients remaining free from seizures for 6 consecutive months after stabilisation at the last assessed dose. The predefined non-inferiority criteria were -12% absolute and -20% relative difference between treatment groups. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01243177. FINDINGS: The trial was done between April 27, 2011, and Aug 7, 2015. 888 patients were randomly assigned treatment. 444 patients taking lacosamide and 442 taking carbamazepine-CR were included in the full analysis set (took at least one dose of study treatment), and 408 and 397, respectively, were included in the per-protocol set. In the full analysis set, 327 (74%) patients in the lacosamide group and 308 (70%) in the carbamazepine-CR group completed 6 months of treatment without seizures. The proportion of patients in the full analysis set predicted by the Kaplan-Meier method to be seizure-free at 6 months was 90% taking lacosamide and 91% taking carbamazepine-CR (absolute treatment-difference: -1·3%, 95% CI -5·5 to 2·8 relative treatment difference: -6·0%). Kaplan-Meier estimates results were similar in the per-protocol set (92% and 93%; -1·3%, -5·3 to 2·7; -5·7%). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 328 (74%) patients receiving lacosamide and 332 (75%) receiving carbamazepine-CR. 32 (7%) patients taking lacosamide and 43 (10%) taking carbamazepine-CR had serious treatment-emergent adverse events, and 47 (11%) and 69 (16%), respectively, had treatment-emergent adverse events that led to withdrawal. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with lacosamide met the predefined non-inferiority criteria when compared with carbamazepine-CR. Therefore, it might be useful as first-line monotherapy for adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy. FUNDING: UCB Pharma.

Randomized double-blind comparison of cognitive and EEG effects of lacosamide and carbamazepine.

Differential effectiveness of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is more commonly determined by tolerability than efficacy. Cognitive effects of AEDs can adversely affect tolerability and quality of life. This study evaluated cognitive and EEG effects of lacosamide (LCM) compared with carbamazepine immediate-release (CBZ-IR). A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, two-period crossover, fixed-dose study in healthy subjects compared neuropsychological and EEG effects of LCM (150mg, b.i.d.) and CBZ-IR (200mg, t.i.d.). Testing was conducted at screening, predrug baseline, the end of each treatment period (3-week titration; 3-week maintenance), and the end of each washout period (4weeks after treatment). A composite Z-score was derived for the primary outcome variable (computerized cognitive tests and traditional neuropsychological measures) and separately for the EEG measures. Other variables included individual computer, neuropsychological, and EEG scores and adverse events (AEs). Subjects included 60 healthy adults (57% female; mean age: 34.4years [SD: 10.5]); 44 completed both treatments; 41 were per protocol subjects. Carbamazepine immediate-release had worse scores compared with LCM for the primary composite neuropsychological outcome (mean difference=0.33 [SD: 1.36], p=0.011) and for the composite EEG score (mean difference=0.92 [SD: 1.77], p=0.003). Secondary analyses across the individual variables revealed that CBZ-IR was statistically worse than LCM on 36% (4/11) of the neuropsychological tests (computerized and noncomputerized) and 0% of the four EEG measures; none favored CBZ-IR. Drug-related AEs occurred more with CBZ-IR (49%) than LCM (22%). Lacosamide had fewer untoward neuropsychological and EEG effects and fewer AEs and AE-related discontinuations than CBZ-IR in healthy subjects. Lacosamide exhibits a favorable cognitive profile.

Changes in hormone and lipid levels in male patients with focal seizures when switched from carbamazepine to lacosamide as adjunctive treatment to levetiracetam: A small phase IIIb, prospective, multicenter, open-label trial.

Treatment with enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) such as carbamazepine (CBZ) can lead to changes in reproductive, endocrine, and lipid parameters, resulting in clinical symptoms for some patients. Previous studies indicate that these changes can be reversed by switching to a nonenzyme-inducing AED. Lacosamide is a newer-generation AED, not known to induce or strongly inhibit cytochrome P450 (CYP450) enzymes. In this phase IIIb, prospective, multicenter, open-label, single-arm trial (NCT01375374), the serum concentrations of CYP-related reproductive hormones, thyroid hormones, and lipids were assessed in otherwise healthy male patients with focal seizures (N=11), before and after a switch from CBZ (600-1200mg/day at baseline) to lacosamide (target dose: 400mg/day by the end of titration) as adjunctive treatment to the nonenzyme-inducing AED levetiracetam (LEV, stable dosage of >1000mg/day throughout). Cross titration took place over 4weeks, followed by an 8-week maintenance period. Serum measurements were conducted at baseline and at the end of maintenance. The median serum sex-hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) concentration was towards the higher end of the normal range at baseline and decreased following the switch (61.7 to 47.5nmol/L, N=10, p=0.027 by Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Free androgen index (100×testosterone/SHBG) and free thyroxine serum concentration increased (25.4 to 36.4 and 13.0 to 14.9pmol/L, respectively, both N=10 and p=0.002). At baseline, the median progesterone serum concentration was below the normal range (0.7nmol/L), whereas median cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein concentrations were above the normal range (5.5 and 3.6mmol/L, respectively). By the end of maintenance, all measured parameters were within the normal range. The safety and tolerability profile of lacosamide was consistent with that observed in previous studies. Furthermore, antiseizure efficacy appeared to be maintained, suggesting that deinduction of CYP enzymes following a switch from CBZ to lacosamide as adjunctive therapy to LEV is feasible within 8weeks and is associated with normalization of serum parameters.

A long-term noninterventional safety study of adjunctive lacosamide therapy in patients with epilepsy and uncontrolled partial-onset seizures.

This noninterventional, observational, postauthorization safety study (SP0942, NCT00771927) evaluated the incidence of predefined cardiovascular- (CV) and psychiatric-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), in patients with epilepsy and uncontrolled partial-onset seizures, when initiating adjunctive therapy with lacosamide or another approved antiepileptic drug (AED) according to standard medical practice. Active recording of predefined TEAEs of interest took place at three-monthly recommended visits for up to 12months. Of 1004 patients who received at least one dose of adjunctive AEDs, 511 initially added lacosamide therapy, 493 added another AED, 69 were ≥65years of age, and 72 took concomitant antiarrhythmic drugs. Patients in the lacosamide cohort had a higher median frequency of partial-onset seizures (6.0 versus 3.5 per 28days) despite taking more concomitant AEDs (84.9% versus 66.9% took ≥2) at baseline. Patients who added lacosamide took a modal dose of 200mg/day over the treatment period (n=501), and 50.1% (256/511) completed 12months of treatment. Fifty-one point nine percent (256/493) of patients who added another AED completed the study, with the most commonly added AED being levetiracetam (28.4%). Four patients (0.8%) in each cohort, all <65years of age, reported predefined CV-related TEAEs. None were considered serious or led to discontinuation. One event each of sinus bradycardia (lacosamide), atrioventricular block first degree (lacosamide), and syncope (other AED) were judged to be treatment-related. Another patient in the other AED cohort reported bradycardia while taking concomitant antiarrhythmic drugs. Predefined psychiatric-related TEAEs were reported by 21 patients (4.1%) in the lacosamide cohort and 27 patients (5.5%) in the other AED cohort. Depression was the most common to be treatment-related (7/11 and 12/18 of patients reporting treatment-related psychiatric TEAEs, respectively). Serious psychiatric-related TEAEs were reported by four patients who added lacosamide (two cases of depression, two of suicide attempt) and one who added another AED (depression). Seven deaths occurred, all of which were considered unrelated/unlikely related to study medication. This thorough evaluation revealed a low incidence of predefined CV- and psychiatric-related TEAEs in patients taking adjunctive AED therapy according to standard medical practice. No specific safety concerns related to adjunctive lacosamide therapy were noted.

Efficacy and safety of lacosamide as first add-on or later adjunctive treatment for uncontrolled partial-onset seizures: A multicentre open-label trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lacosamide administered as either first add-on or later add-on antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy for patients with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures (POS). METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre trial, patients with POS initiated oral lacosamide (titrated to 400 mg/day) either as add-on to first AED monotherapy, or as later add-on to 1-3 concomitant AEDs after ≥ 2 previous AEDs. The primary efficacy variable was the proportion of patients achieving seizure freedom for the first 12 weeks of the 24-week Maintenance Phase. RESULTS: 456 patients received ≥ 1 dose of lacosamide (96 as first add-on, 360 as later add-on). In the first add-on cohort, 27/72 (37.5%) patients completed 12 weeks treatment and remained seizure-free; 18/68 (26.5%) remained seizure-free after 24 weeks. 64/91 (70.3%) patients achieved ≥ 50% reduction in seizure frequency during maintenance treatment. This was accompanied by a mean 7.1 ± 16.00 point improvement from Baseline in the Quality of Life Inventory in Epilepsy (QOLIE-31-P) total score for 24-week completers, with improvement reported in all subscales. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were dizziness (31.3%) and headache (13.5%). In the later add-on cohort, 39/261 (14.9%) and 29/249 (11.6%) patients remained seizure-free after completing 12 and 24 weeks' treatment, respectively. 178/353 (50.4%) patients achieved ≥ 50% reduction in seizure frequency during maintenance treatment. Mean change in QOLIE-31-P total score was 4.8 ± 14.74 points among 24-week completers. Common TEAEs were dizziness (33.6%), somnolence (15.0%) and headache (11.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Lacosamide initiated as first add-on treatment was efficacious and well tolerated in patients with uncontrolled POS.

A pooled analysis of lacosamide clinical trial data grouped by mechanism of action of concomitant antiepileptic drugs.

BACKGROUND: Lacosamide, a new antiepileptic drug (AED) with a different pharmacological action that enhances sodium channel slow inactivation, is approved for the adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures in adults. Previous analyses of pooled phase II/III trials have demonstrated that lacosamide provides additional efficacy when added to a broad range of AEDs. OBJECTIVE: To further evaluate the efficacy and safety of lacosamide by grouping patients based upon the sodium channel-blocking properties of their concomitant AEDs. STUDY DESIGN: Post hoc exploratory analyses were performed on pooled data in which patients were grouped based upon inclusion or non-inclusion of at least one 'traditional' sodium channel-blocking AED (defined as carbamazepine, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine and phenytoin derivatives) as part of their concomitant AED regimen. SETTING: Data pooled from previously conducted phase II/III clinical trials of lacosamide. PATIENTS: Adult patients with partial-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization (N = 1308). INTERVENTION: Four- to six-week Titration Phase followed by 12-week maintenance treatment with adjunctive lacosamide (Vimpat®) [200, 400 or 600 mg/day] or placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Efficacy variables included change in seizure frequency per 28 days and the proportion of patients experiencing a ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency (50% responder rate) from Baseline to the Maintenance Phase. The proportion of patients experiencing a ≥75% reduction in seizure frequency from Baseline to the Maintenance Phase (75% responder rate) was also assessed. Safety parameters assessed were treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and discontinuation due to TEAEs. Additional safety assessments were changes in ECG and laboratory parameters as well as vital signs (including bodyweight). RESULTS: Of 1308 patients in the pooled phase II/III population, the majority (82%) were using at least one 'traditional' sodium channel-blocking concomitant AED. In this subgroup of patients, adjunctive lacosamide showed significant reductions in seizure frequency (p < 0.01, all dosages) and significantly greater 50% and 75% responder rates (p < 0.01 for 400 mg/day; p < 0.01 [50% responder rate] and p < 0.05 [75% responder rate] for 600 mg/day) compared with placebo; these effects were similar to the results seen in the pooled phase II/III population. TEAEs and discontinuations due to TEAEs in this subgroup were dose related and similar to the pooled phase II/III population. In the remaining subgroup of patients, i.e. those not taking 'traditional' sodium channel-blocking AEDs as part of their concomitant AED regimen (n = 231; 18%), a pronounced, dose-related seizure reduction was observed with lacosamide (p < 0.01, 400 and 600 mg/day for median percent seizure reduction and 50% or 75% responder rates). Also in this group, incidences of TEAEs were low, and discontinuations due to TEAEs did not appear to increase with dose. Analyses of ECG, laboratory and vital signs (including bodyweight) assessments did not identify abnormalities in either subgroup that were outside of the known safety profile of lacosamide observed in the pooled phase II/III population. CONCLUSION: In this post hoc exploratory analysis, adjunctive lacosamide demonstrated significant seizure reduction over placebo regardless of the inclusion of 'traditional' sodium channel blockers in the concomitant AED regimen. Future prospective studies evaluating single AED combinations (e.g. lacosamide plus one other drug) are needed to better evaluate the potential for additive or synergistic effects of lacosamide in combination with AEDs not considered 'traditional' sodium channel blockers.

Belgian observational drug utilization study of pimecrolimus cream 1% in routine daily practice in atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: For reimbursement purposes of pimecrolimus cream 1%, the Belgian authorities asked to document its consumption, its topical corticosteroid-sparing effect and quality of life within the routine clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to address the 3 queries of the Belgian authorities. METHODS: An open-label, observational, multicentre, 1-year study under drug prescription was performed. RESULTS: A total of 416 consecutive patients were enrolled in 49 centres. The mean annual amount of prescribed pimecrolimus cream 1% per patient was 120.8 g (SD = 117.0), with an estimated consumption of 104.4 g (SD = 117.6). The median annual amount prescribed was 90.0 g [interquartile range (IQR) = 45-150] and the estimated consumption 63.6 g (IQR = 32.4-132). Topical corticosteroids had been used before the study in 81.7% of the population. With pimecrolimus cream 1% during the study, 83.3% of the previous corticosteroid users stated less topical corticosteroid use than before and 36% of them did not apply topical corticosteroids at all during the study. The mean improvements compared to baseline in Parents' Index Quality of Life-Atopic Dermatitis and Quality of Life Index-Atopic Dermatitis scores were 34.5% (SD = 84.3) and 31.2% (SD = 70.8), respectively. The median improvements were 50.0% (IQR = 12.5-85.7%) and 46.4% (IQR = 0.0-85.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In routine practice the consumption of pimecrolimus cream 1% is relatively low, with corticosteroid-sparing effect, improvement in quality of life and good tolerability.

Cyclosporine pharmacokinetics and dose monitoring after lung transplantation: comparison between cystic fibrosis and other conditions.

BACKGROUND: In cystic fibrosis (CF), absorption of cyclosporine A (CsA) through the gastrointestinal tract is often impaired because of fat malabsorption. The aim of this study was to compare the steady-state pharmacokinetics of CsA and the inter- and intrasubject variability of CsA exposure in stable lung transplant recipients with and without CF and to determine the best single-time predictors of the area under the curve (AUC). METHODS: Ten lung transplant recipients without CF and 10 lung transplant recipients with CF were studied. All patients received Neoral twice daily. Blood samples were obtained predose and at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12 h postdose on three separate days within a 5-day period. RESULTS: CsA exposure and pharmacokinetic variables were similar in the two groups, although exposure-per-milligram-per-dose was approximately 25% lower in CF patients. Coefficients of intersubject variability were numerically higher in CF patients, but the difference between groups did not reach significance. On the other hand, the maximum concentration (Cmax), the concentration 2 hours after administration (C2), AUC0-12, and AUC0-4 showed a twofold greater intrasubject variability in CF patients. CsA trough concentration did not predict accurately the AUC, but C2 was a good predictor of the AUC0-4 in both CF (r2=0.90) and non-CF (r2=0.78) patients. CONCLUSION: Compared to patients without CF, patients with CF show a lower bioavailability of CsA and a greater intrasubject variability of Cmax, C2, and AUC. C2 is the best single-point predictor of the AUC0-4 in lung transplant recipients with and without CF.

Dynamic T cell receptor clonotype changes in synovial tissue of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: effects of treatment with cyclosporin A (Neoral).

OBJECTIVE: To study T cell receptor (TCR) repertoire changes in synovial membrane over a 16 week period in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA); and to study the influence of cyclosporin A (CSA) on TCR repertoire in a subgroup of these patients. METHODS: Synovial tissue biopsies and paired blood samples were obtained from 12 patients with early RA at 2 time points. Seven patients were treated with CSA (Neoral-Sandimmun, 3 mg/kg/day) and 5 patients with placebo for 16 weeks. TCR V gene repertoires were analyzed by semiquantitative PCR-ELISA. CDR3 spectratyping and sequence analysis was used to compare TCR clonotype distributions. RESULTS: TCR-specific mRNA was detected in all synovial tissue biopsies at the first sampling, but in only 8/12 biopsies 16 weeks later (4/7 CSA group, 4/5 placebo group). Overrepresented TCR BV genes were found in biopsies of 10/12 patients at the first time point, and in 7/12 patients after 16 weeks (3/7 CSA, 4/5 placebo). CDR3 sequence analysis revealed dynamic repertoire changes with only a few persisting clonotypes in the synovial tissue of placebo controls. Persisting T cell clonotypes were more frequently found in the synovial tissue of CSA treated patients compared to the placebo group. CONCLUSION: These data suggest a dynamic process of T cell recruitment in the joints of RA patients. This process, possibly due to activation and subsequent infiltration of new T cell clones, apparently is influenced by CSA treatment. Synovial tissue T cells were no longer detected after 16 weeks' CSA treatment in 3 patients. In the other CSA treated patients, new T cell clones infiltrated, while other clones were persistently represented in the joints. These data may have important consequences for the design of T cell targeted therapies for RA.