Search

Objective: We conducted a post hoc analysis of two randomized controlled trials, GWPCARE1 (NCT02091375) and GWPCARE2 (NCT02224703), to estimate the time to onset of cannabidiol (CBD) treatment effects (seizure reduction and adverse events [AEs]) in patients with Dravet syndrome (DS). Methods: Patients received either plant‐derived highly purified CBD (Epidiolex in the United States; 100 mg/ml oral solution) 10 mg/kg/day (CBD10; GWPCARE2) or 20 mg/kg/day (CBD20; GWPCARE1&2), or matching placebo for 14 weeks. Treatment started at 2.5 mg/kg/day, reached 10 mg/kg/day on Day 7, and went up to 20 mg/kg/day on Day 11 during the 14‐day titration period. Percentage change from baseline in convulsive seizure frequency was calculated by cumulative day (i.e., including all previous days). Time to onset and resolution of AEs were also evaluated. Results: Overall, 124 patients received placebo and 194 received CBD (CBD10, n = 64; CBD20, n = 130). Mean age was 9.5 years (range = 2.2–18.9). Patients had discontinued a median of four antiepileptic drugs (range = 0–26) and were currently taking a median of three (range = 1–5). Differences in convulsive seizure reduction between placebo and CBD emerged during titration and became nominally significant by Day 12 for CBD20 (p =.02) and Day 13 for CBD10 (p =.03). Additionally, differences in the 50% responder rate between placebo and CBD became apparent during titration. Onset of the first reported AE occurred during the titration period in 48.4% of placebo patients and 54.1% of CBD patients. The three most common AEs of somnolence, decreased appetite, and diarrhea resolved within 4 weeks of onset in the majority of CBD‐treated patients (56.3%–72.9%). Significance: The therapeutic effect of CBD in DS may start within 2 weeks of treatment in some patients. Although AEs lasted longer for CBD than placebo, most resolved within the 14‐week study period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To estimate time to onset of cannabidiol (CBD) treatment effect (seizure reduction and adverse events [AEs]), we conducted post hoc analyses of data from two randomized, placebo‐controlled, Phase 3 trials, GWPCARE3 (NCT02224560) and GWPCARE4 (NCT02224690), of patients with Lennox–Gastaut syndrome. Methods: Patients received plant‐derived pharmaceutical formulation of highly purified CBD (Epidiolex, 100 mg/ml oral solution) at 10 mg/kg/day (CBD10; GWPCARE3) or 20 mg/kg/day (CBD20; both trials) or placebo for 14 weeks. Treatment started at 2.5 mg/kg/day for all groups and reached 10 mg/kg/day on Day 7 and 20 mg/kg/day (CBD20 and matching placebo only) on Day 11. Percentage change from baseline in drop seizure frequency was calculated by cumulative day (i.e., including all previous days). Time to onset and resolution of AEs were evaluated. Results: Overall, 235 patients received CBD (CBD10 [GWPCARE3 only], n = 67; CBD20 [pooled GWPCARE3&4], n = 168) and 161 received placebo. Mean (range) age was 15.3 years (2.6–48.0). Patients had previously discontinued a median (range) of six (0–28) antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and were currently taking a median of three (0–5) AEDs. Differences in drop seizure reduction between placebo and CBD emerged during the titration period and became nominally significant by Day 6 (p =.008) for pooled CBD treatment groups. Separation between placebo and CBD in ≥50% responder rate emerged by Day 6. Onset of the first reported AE occurred during the titration period in 45% of patients (CBD10, 46%; CBD20, 52%; placebo, 38%). In patients with AEs, resolution occurred within 4 weeks of onset in 53% of placebo and 39% of CBD patients and by end of study in 63% of placebo and 61% of CBD patients. Significance: Treatment effect (efficacy and AEs) of CBD may occur within 1 week of starting treatment. Although AEs lasted longer for CBD than placebo, most resolved within the 14‐week period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

Abstract: There has been little long-term success with polytherapy for patients with refractory partial-onset epilepsy. The rational combination of antiepileptic drugs based on their mechanism of action may help improve treatment efficacy and tolerability. Lacosamide, a novel sodium channel blocker (SCB), was investigated in 158 patients with partial-onset epilepsy in the prospective, multicenter, observational, RELACOVA cohort study conducted in Spain. After 12months'' treatment with lacosamide, 47% of patients were responders (≥50% reduction in seizure frequency) and 24% were seizure free. Lacosamide was well tolerated; dizziness was the most frequent adverse event. Efficacy was better (responder rate, 65% vs 38%; seizure free rate, 35% vs 17%) and there was a lower adverse event rate (33% vs 58%) in patients receiving non-SCBs (n=49) versus those receiving SCBs (n=104) as concomitant therapy at baseline. Further investigation of lacosamide combination therapy is warranted. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term effects of adjunctive perampanel on cognition, efficacy, growth, safety, and tolerability in adolescents with inadequately controlled partial seizures. Methods Study 235, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, Phase II study with an open-label extension phase ( NCT01161524 ), was primarily designed to assess the effects of adjunctive perampanel on cognition. Patients (aged ≥ 12 to < 18 years) had a diagnosis of epilepsy with inadequately controlled partial seizures, with or without secondary generalization, despite receiving 1–3 antiepileptic drugs. During the double-blind phase, adjunctive perampanel or placebo was administered over a 6-week titration period and a 13-week maintenance period up to 12 mg/day. During the extension phase, all patients received perampanel. Data from the extension phase are presented here. Study endpoints included change from baseline in Cognitive Drug Research (CDR) measures of cognition, seizure frequency, growth, development, the occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and laboratory values. Results A total of 114 patients entered the extension phase (prior double-blind treatment: placebo, n = 41; perampanel, n = 73). Perampanel had no effect on the CDR system global cognition score, continuity of attention, quality of episodic memory, quality of working memory, or speed of memory but was associated with a significant decline in power of attention at end of treatment compared with baseline ( p = 0.03). There were no effects on language skills or manual dexterity from baseline to end of treatment. At Weeks 40–52, median reduction in seizure frequency was 74.1%, and 50% responder rate was 66.0%. There were no clinically relevant effects of perampanel on growth or development at end of treatment compared with baseline. Overall, 84.2% of patients experienced at least one TEAE and 70.2% experienced at least one treatment-related TEAE. The most common TEAEs were dizziness (29.8%) and somnolence (19.3%). The TEAEs resulted in the discontinuation of treatment in 6.1% of patients. Conclusions In keeping with the 19-week double-blind phase, long-term adjunctive treatment with perampanel did not have any significant overall effects on the CDR system global cognition score in adolescent patients with inadequately controlled partial seizures. Similar trends were observed across the individual CDR system domains. Adjunctive perampanel showed sustained long-term seizure control and had a safety and tolerability profile similar to that observed in prior clinical studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Psychiatric and intellectual comorbidities are common in patients with epilepsy. However, data on the use of antiepileptic drugs in these patients are still lacking. This study assessed the real-world effectiveness and safety/tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in patients with intellectual disability and psychiatric comorbidities, including a separate analysis specifically in those with depression, using data from the Euro-Esli study. Effectiveness measures included responder and seizure freedom rates. Safety and tolerability were assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and ESL discontinuation due to AEs, respectively. Of the 2058 patients initially included in the Euro-Esli study, 952 patients had intellectual disability data available, 1138 had psychiatric comorbidity data available and 1134 had depression data available. Of those who had intellectual or psychiatric comorbidity data available, 11.3% (108/952) suffered from intellectual disability, 24.9% (283/1138) had a psychiatric disorder, including depression, and 12.4% (141/1134) specifically had depression. Responder and seizure freedom rates were generally comparable between patients with psychiatric comorbidity and those without, and patients with depression and those without. However, responder and seizure freedom rates were significantly lower in patients with intellectual disability compared with those without. Overall, patients with psychiatric and intellectual comorbidities experienced more AEs and AEs leading to ESL discontinuation than patients without these comorbidities. The incidence of psychiatric AEs was not significantly different for patients with psychiatric comorbidities or depression than those without, and the incidence of cognitive AEs was not significantly different for patients with intellectual disability than those without. These findings suggest that ESL is effective in patients with psychiatric and intellectual comorbidities and that its use in these patients is unlikely to exacerbate existing psychiatric or cognitive disturbances. • Euro-Esli assessed the effectiveness of eslicarbazepine acetate in clinical practice. • Psychiatric and intellectual comorbidities are common in patients with epilepsy. • Eslicarbazepine acetate was effective in Euro-Esli patients with these comorbidities. • Adverse events were more common in patients with versus without these comorbidities. • However, existing psychiatric or cognitive conditions did not seem to be exacerbated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This post hoc analysis of six randomized, double-blind, Phase II and III studies evaluated efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel (2–12 mg/day) in adolescent patients (aged ≥ 12 to ≤ 17 years) with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures, with or without secondarily generalized (SG) seizures, or primary generalized tonic–clonic (PGTC) seizures. Adolescent patients from Studies 304 (NCT00699972), 305 (NCT00699582), 306 (NCT00700310), 335 (NCT01618695), 235 (NCT01161524), and 332 (NCT01393743) were included. Efficacy assessments (split by seizure type) included median percent change in seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline and seizure-freedom rates. Safety assessments (all seizure types combined) included monitoring of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). The Safety Analysis Set included 372 adolescent patients (placebo, n = 114; perampanel, n = 258); the Full Analysis Set included 346 patients with partial-onset seizures (placebo, n = 103; perampanel, n = 243), of whom 125 experienced SG seizures during baseline (placebo, n = 37; perampanel, n = 88), and 22 with PGTC seizures (placebo, n = 9; perampanel, n = 13). Compared with placebo, perampanel 8 and 12 mg/day conferred greater median percent reductions in seizure frequency per 28 days for partial-onset seizures (18.0% vs 35.9% and 53.8% [both P < 0.01]) and SG seizures (24.4% vs 72.8% [ P < 0.001] and 57.8% [ P < 0.01]), and greater seizure-freedom rates (partial-onset: 7.8% vs 13.2% and 11.8% [not statistically significant]; SG: 8.1% vs 40.7% [ P < 0.001] and 41.7% [ P < 0.01]). For PGTC seizures, and compared with placebo, perampanel 8 mg/day was also associated with greater median percent reductions in seizure frequency per 28 days (29.8% vs 88.0%) and greater seizure-freedom rates (11.1% vs 23.1%). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 76 (66.7%) placebo- and 192 (74.4%) perampanel-treated patients (most common: dizziness, somnolence, headache, and nasopharyngitis). Serious TEAEs occurred in 5 (4.4%) placebo- and 11 (4.3%) perampanel-treated patients. Adjunctive perampanel was efficacious and generally well tolerated in adolescent patients with partial-onset, SG, or PGTC seizures and represents a potentially beneficial treatment option for adolescents with uncontrolled epilepsy. • Post hoc analysis of adjunctive perampanel in adolescents (aged ≥ 12 to ≤ 17 years) • Perampanel was efficacious for partial-onset and PGTC seizures vs placebo. • Perampanel was generally well tolerated in adolescent patients. • Perampanel may be a suitable treatment option for adolescent patients with epilepsy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]