ESL (800 and 1200mg QD) was effective and well tolerated as adjunctive therapy for adults with refractory POS.

Overall ESL did not produce statistically significant effects on neurocognitive and behavioral functioning in patients with epilepsy aged 6 to 16years. Additionally, ESL was effective in reducing seizure frequency and was well-tolerated.

SummaryPurposePooled evaluation of the key efficacy and safety profile of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) added‐on to stable antiepileptic therapy in adults with focal‐onset seizures.MethodsData from 1703 patients enrolled in four phase III double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled studies were pooled and analyzed. Following a 2 week titration period, ESL was administered at 400 mg, 800 mg, and 1200 mg once‐daily doses for 12 weeks (maintenance period). Pooled efficacy variable was standardized (/4 weeks) seizure frequency (SSF) analyzed over the maintenance period as reduction in absolute and relative SSF and proportion of responders (≥50% reduction in SSF). Pooled safety was analyzed by means of adverse events and clinical laboratory assessments.Results SSF was significantly reduced with ESL 800 mg (P < 0.0001) and 1200 mg (P < 0.0001) compared to placebo. Median relative reduction in SSF was 33.4% for ESL 800 mg and 37.8% for 1200 mg (placebo: 17.6%), and responder rate was 33.8% and 43.1% (placebo: 22.2%). ESL was more efficacious than placebo regardless of gender, geographical region, epilepsy duration, age at time of diagnosis, seizure type, and type of concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AED). Incidence of adverse events (AEs) and AEs leading to discontinuation was dose dependent. Most common AEs (>10% patients) were dizziness, somnolence, and nausea. The incidence of treatment‐emergent AEs (dizziness, somnolence, ataxia, vomiting, and nausea) was lower in patients who began taking ESL 400 mg (followed by 400 mg increments to 800 or 1200 mg) than in those who began taking ESL 600 mg or 800 mg.ConclusionsOnce‐daily ESL 800 mg and 1200 mg showed consistent results across all efficacy and safety endpoints, independent of study population characteristics and type of concomitant AEDs. Treatment initiated with ESL 400 mg followed by 400 mg increments to 800 or 1200 mg provides optimal balance of efficacy and tolerability.

This was a phase-III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study aimed to evaluate efficacy and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as adjunctive therapy in pediatric patients with refractory focal-onset seizures (FOS). Methods: Children (2-18 years old) with FOS, receiving 1-2 antiepileptic drugs, were randomized to ESL or placebo. Treatment was started at 10 mg/kg/day, up-titrated up to 20-30 mg/kg/day, and maintained for 12 weeks, followed by one-year open-label follow-up. Primary efficacy endpoints were relative reduction in standardized seizure frequency (SSF) and proportion of responders (≥50% SSF reduction) from baseline. Safety was evaluated by the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: The intention-to-treat (ITT) set included 134 patients randomized to ESL and 129 to placebo; 89.6% and 91.5%, respectively, completed the trial. An unbalanced number of seizures at baseline were observed between groups. Least square (LS) mean relative change in SSF from baseline was higher in the ESL group (− 18.1%) than in placebo (−8.6%). Proportion of responders between ESL and placebo groups was not statistically different. A post hoc analysis showed greater relative reduction in SSF in patients above 6 years old treated with ESL 20 or 30 mg/kg/day compared with placebo; this was significant in patients above 6 years old treated with ESL 30 mg/kg/day (LS mean difference: 31.9%; p = 0.0478). The observed safety profile in children was consistent with that established in adult studies. Conclusions: Adjunctive ESL treatment was well-tolerated, but this trial failed to demonstrate that ESL was more effective than placebo in the predefined efficacy endpoints; factors that may have contributed to this outcome, affecting particularly the young age group, include etiological heterogeneity, difficulty in recognizing simple partial seizures, high seizure frequency with risk of imbalance, and underestimation of the efficacious dose range.

A BS TRACT: Background: Inhibiting catechol-Omethyltransferase extends the plasma half-life of levodopa, potentially allowing physicians to optimize the levodopa regimen in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) experiencing motor fluctuations. Objectives: To evaluate the effects of once-daily opicapone on levodopa plasma pharmacokinetics and motor response when added to two different levodopa dosing regimens. Methods: A total of 24 patients with PD and motor fluctuations were enrolled in an exploratory, open-label, modified cross-over trial. Participants first received levodopa/carbidopa 500/125 mg (five intakes) for 2 weeks and were then randomly assigned (1:1) to levodopa/ carbidopa 400/100 mg given over either four or five daily intakes plus opicapone 50 mg for an additional 2 weeks. Levodopa 12-hour pharmacokinetics was the primary outcome (ie, excluding the effect of last/evening levodopa/carbidopa intake), with motor complications evaluated as secondary outcomes. Results: Over 12-hour pharmacokinetics and compared with five-intake levodopa/carbidopa 500/125 mg without opicapone, maximal levodopa concentrations were similar or nonsignificantly higher on both levodopa/carbidopa 400/100 mg regimens plus opicapone. Despite a 100 mg lower total levodopa/carbidopa daily dose, adding opicapone 50 mg at least doubled the levodopa plasma half-life and minimal concentrations, with a significant ≈30% increase in total exposure. The levodopa fluctuation index was only significantly lower for the five intakes plus opicapone regimen (difference of À71.8%; P < 0.0001). Modifications to levodopa pharmacokinetics were associated with decreased off time and increased on time. Conclusions: Combining opicapone 50 mg with a 100 mg lower daily dose of levodopa provides higher levodopa bioavailability with avoidance of trough levels. Despite the lower levodopa dose, modifying the levodopa pharmacokinetic profile with opicapone was associated with decreased off time and increased on time.