Search

Introduction: Clinical practice studies help guide antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy in patient groups routinely excluded from clinical trials, such as the elderly. The Euro-Esli study investigated the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) when used in everyday clinical practice in Europe. A subanalysis of data from elderly patients (≥ 60 years) included in the Euro-Esli study was conducted to assess these aspects of ESL use in this population. Methods: Euro-Esli was a pooled analysis of 14 European clinical practice studies. Effectiveness parameters included responder (≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction) and seizure freedom rates after 3, 6 and 12 months of treatment and at last visit. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout the follow-up by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and ESL discontinuation due to AEs, respectively. Data were compared for patients aged ≥ 60 versus those aged < 60 years at study entry. Results: Euro-Esli included 2058 patients (mean age 44.0 years). Age at study entry was known for 2057 patients, of whom 358 (17.4%) and 1699 (82.6%) were aged ≥ 60 and < 60 years, respectively. Mean maximum ESL dose was 882.0 and 1008.2 mg/day in patients aged ≥ 60 and < 60 years, respectively (p < 0.001). At all timepoints, responder and seizure freedom rates were significantly higher in patients aged ≥ 60 versus < 60 years; for example, at 12 months, responder rates were 83.9 and 73.7%, respectively (p = 0.002), and seizure freedom rates were 58.5 and 37.1%, respectively (p < 0.001). The incidence of AEs was significantly higher in patients aged ≥ 60 versus < 60 years (41.4 vs. 32.5%; p = 0.001), but the rate of discontinuation due to AEs was comparable between age groups (16.2 vs 13.1%; p = not significant). The safety/tolerability of ESL in patients aged ≥ 60 years was consistent with its known profile. Conclusion: Eslicarbazepine acetate was efficacious and generally well tolerated when used to treat elderly patients with focal epilepsy in clinical practice, with no new or unexpected safety signals emerging in this setting. Funding: Eisai Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Euro-Esli is the largest eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) clinical practice study. • Post-hoc analysis of Euro-Esli examined baseline factors predictive of ESL response. • ESL effectiveness was most associated with factors indicating early disease course. • These findings may help clinicians when choosing individualised treatment plans. Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is a once-daily antiseizure medication (ASM) that is approved in Europe and the USA for the treatment of focal-onset seizures. The Euro-Esli study, which included over 2000 patients, investigated the real-world effectiveness, safety and tolerability of ESL when used in everyday clinical practice in Europe. This post-hoc analysis of Euro-Esli employed univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses to investigate the relationship between demographic and baseline characteristics (including epilepsy- and treatment-related factors) and the likelihood of seizure freedom, response and retention in adult patients with focal seizures after 12 months of ESL treatment in the real-world setting. Multivariate analysis revealed that the factors associated with seizure freedom and response at 12 months (N = 1054) were generally those characterising patients who were relatively early in their disease course and/or less refractory to treatment, such as older age at onset of epilepsy, absence of seizures at baseline and lower number of concomitant ASMs at baseline. Although it was not possible to construct a multivariate model to predict retention on ESL treatment at 12 months, when the univariate regression model was adjusted for age and epilepsy duration, the factors found to be significantly associated with retention at 12 months (N = 1559) comprised shorter duration of epilepsy, absence of any seizures at baseline, lower baseline seizure frequency (<5 vs. ≥ 5 seizures/month), lower number of previous ASMs, lower number of concomitant ASMs, and the absence of concomitant use of lamotrigine at baseline. These findings therefore identify baseline characteristics that are predictive of the effectiveness of ESL treatment in clinical practice, which may help clinicians choose appropriate ASM therapy for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dravet syndrome (DS) is a severe, rare, and complex developmental and epileptic encephalopathy affecting 1 in 16 000 live births and characterized by a drug-resistant epilepsy, cognitive, psychomotor, and language impairment, and behavioral disorders. Evidence suggests that optimal treatment of seizures in DS may improve outcomes, even though neurodevelopmental impairments are the likely result of both the underlying genetic variant and the epilepsy. We present an updated guideline for DS diagnosis and treatment, taking into consideration care of the adult patient and nonpharmaceutical therapeutic options for this disease. This up-to-date guideline, which is based on an extensive review of the literature and culminates with a new treatment algorithm for DS, is a European consensus developed through a survey involving 29 European clinical experts in DS. This guideline will serve professionals in their clinical practice and, as a consequence, will benefit DS patients and their families., (© 2021 The Authors. Epilepsia Open published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International League Against Epilepsy.)

Purpose: To investigate the opinions of physicians on the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in patients with epilepsy (PWE) worldwide., Methods: Online survey addressed to neurologists and psychiatrists from different countries., Results: Totally, 1112 physicians from 25 countries (different world region: Europe, North America, South America, Middle-East, Africa, Former Soviet Union Republics) participated; 804 (72.3%) believed that CAM might be helpful in PWE. The most commonly endorsed CAM included meditation (41%) and yoga (39%). Female sex, psychiatry specialization, and working in North and South America were associated with the belief that CAM is helpful in PWE. Two-hundred and forty five out of 1098 participants (22.3%) used/prescribed CAM to PWE; among them, 174 (71%) people perceived CAM to be less effective and 114 (46.5%) people found CAM to be safer than conventional antiseizure medications (ASMs). The most common reasons to prescribe CAM for PWE were: to satisfy the patient (49.9%), dissatisfaction with the efficacy (35.6%), and dissatisfaction with the adverse effects (31.2%) of conventional therapies., Conclusion: Although the evidence supporting the use of CAM for the treatment of epilepsy is extremely sparse, most physicians worldwide believe that it could be integrated with the use of conventional ASMs, at least in some patients. High-quality controlled trials are warranted to provide robust evidence on the usefulness of CAM options in PWE., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Clinical care of rare and complex epilepsies is challenging, because evidence-based treatment guidelines are scarce, the experience of many physicians is limited, and interdisciplinary treatment of comorbidities is required. The pathomechanisms of rare epilepsies are, however, increasingly understood, which potentially fosters novel targeted therapies. The objectives of our survey were to obtain an overview of the clinical practice in European tertiary epilepsy centers treating patients with 5 arbitrarily selected rare epilepsies and to get an estimate of potentially available patients for future studies., Methods: Members of the European Reference Network for rare and complex epilepsies ( EpiCARE) were invited to participate in a web-based survey on clinical practice of patients with Dravet syndrome, tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC), autoimmune encephalitis, and progressive myoclonic epilepsies including Unverricht Lundborg and Unverricht-like diseases. A consensus-based questionnaire was generated for each disease., Results: Twenty-six of 30 invited epilepsy centers participated. Cohorts were present in most responding centers for TSC (87%), Dravet syndrome (85%), and autoimmune encephalitis (71%). Patients with TSC and Dravet syndrome represented the largest cohorts in these centers. The antiseizure drug treatments were rather consistent across the centers especially with regard to Dravet syndrome, infantile spasms in TSC, and Unverricht Lundborg / Unverricht-like disease. Available, widely used targeted therapies included everolimus in TSC and immunosuppressive therapies in autoimmune encephalitis. Screening for comorbidities was routinely done, but specific treatment protocols were lacking in most centers., Significance: The survey summarizes the current clinical practice for selected rare epilepsies in tertiary European epilepsy centers and demonstrates consistency as well as heterogeneity in the treatment, underscoring the need for controlled trials and recommendations. The survey also provides estimates for potential participants of clinical trials recruited via EpiCARE, emphasizing the great potential of Reference Networks for future studies to evaluate new targeted therapies and to identify novel biomarkers., Competing Interests: Sameer M Zuberi has conducted randomized controlled trials for GW Pharma and Zogenix Ltd in patients with Dravet syndrome. He has participated in advisory boards for Zogenix, GW Pharma, Biocodex, and Encoded Genomics. Katarzyna Kotulska was supported by the 7th Framework Programme of European Commission within the Large‐scale Integrating Project EPISTOP (Proposal No: 602 391‐2; Proposal title: “Long term, prospective study evaluating clinical and molecular biomarkers of epileptogenesis in a genetic model of epilepsy – tuberous sclerosis complex”; www.EPISTOP.eu) and the Polish Ministerial funds for science (years 2014‐2018) for the implementation of international co‐financed project and the grant EPIMARKER of the Polish National Center for Research and Development No STRATEGMED3/306306/4/2016. All other authors have no conflict of interest related to this survey to disclose. We confirm that we have read the Journal's position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this report is consistent with those guidelines., (© 2020 The Authors. Epilepsia Open published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International League Against Epilepsy.)

Purpose: To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in patients transitioning from carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine to ESL in clinical practice, by analysing data from the Euro-Esli study., Methods: Euro-Esli was a pooled analysis of 14 European clinical practice studies. Effectiveness assessments included responder rate (≥50 % seizure frequency reduction) and seizure freedom rate (seizure freedom at least since prior visit), assessed after 3, 6 and 12 months of ESL treatment, and at the last visit. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout follow-up by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and ESL discontinuation due to AEs, respectively. Data were analysed for cohorts of patients who transitioned from carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine to ESL either due to lack of efficacy or poor tolerability., Results: Euro-Esli included 2058 patients, of whom 233 (11.3 %) transitioned from carbamazepine to ESL and 134 (6.5 %) transitioned from oxcarbazepine to ESL. After 12 months of ESL treatment, responder and seizure freedom rates for patients transitioning from carbamazepine due to lack of efficacy (n = 163) were 70.0 % and 30.9 %, respectively. Corresponding values for patients transitioning from oxcarbazepine due to lack of efficacy (n = 90) were 57.1 % and 25.0 %, respectively. Among patients who transitioned from carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine to ESL due to poor tolerability (n = 64 and n = 61, respectively), 26.6 % and 39.5 % experienced AEs, and 8.3 % and 6.8 % discontinued ESL due to AEs, respectively., Conclusion: ESL was efficacious and generally well tolerated in patients transitioning from carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine in clinical practice due to inadequate seizure control or intolerable AEs with these agents., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest RR is a consultant for Eisai, Bial, UCB, GlaxoSmithKline and Shire, and receives grant and research support from Bial, Eisai, and UCB. JP has participated in clinical trials for Eisai, UCB, and Bial; received research grants from Eisai, Medtronic, UCB, and Cyberonics; received speaker honoraria from Cyberonics, Eisai, Medtronic, Orion Pharma, and UCB; received support for travel to congresses from Cyberonics, Eisai, Medtronic, and UCB; and participated in advisory boards for Cyberonics, Eisai, Medtronic, UCB, and Pfizer. GA has no conflicts of interest. RM is a current employee of Eisai Europe Ltd. VV has participated in advisory boards and pharmaceutical industry-sponsored symposia for Eisai, UCB Pharma, Bial, Pfizer, GSK, Esteve, Novartis and GW Pharma., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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., (Wiley Periodicals, Inc. © 2018 International League Against Epilepsy.)