No abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of conversion to lacosamide 400 mg/day monotherapy in adults with focal epilepsy.MethodsThis historical-controlled, double-blind study (NCT00520741) enrolled patients aged 16–70 years on stable doses of 1–2 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and experiencing 2–40 partial-onset seizures per 28 days during the 8-week prospective Baseline. Patients were randomized to lacosamide 400 or 300 mg/day (3:1 ratio), starting at 200 mg/day and titrated over 3 weeks to randomized dose. Patients then withdrew background AEDs over 6 weeks and entered a 10-week Monotherapy Phase. The primary assessment was the Kaplan-Meier–predicted percentage of patients on 400 mg/day in the full analysis set (FAS) meeting ≥1 predefined seizure-related exit criterion by day 112, compared with the historical-control threshold (65.3%).ResultsFour hundred twenty-five patients were enrolled and were eligible for safety analyses (400 mg/day, n = 319; 300 mg/day, n = 106). A total of 271 (63.8%) of 425 patients completed the Lacosamide Maintenance Phase (combined AED Withdrawal and Monotherapy Phases). Among 284 patients in the 400 mg/day group in the FAS, 82 (28.9%) met ≥1 exit criterion; the Kaplan-Meier–predicted exit percentage at day 112 for 400 mg/day (30.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 24.6–35.5%) was lower than the historical control. When exit events, withdrawal due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and withdrawal due to lack of efficacy were summed (n = 90), the predicted exit percentage (32.3%; 95% CI 26.8–37.8%) was also lower than the historical control. Most patients receiving 400 mg/day reported some improvement on the Clinical Global Impression of Change (75.4%) and Patient Global Impression of Change (74.3%). Overall, the most common (>10%) TEAEs were dizziness (24.0%), headache (14.4%), nausea (13.4%), convulsion (11.5%), somnolence (10.4%), and fatigue (10.1%); most (74.1%) were mild-to-moderate in intensity. Seventy-two patients (16.9%) discontinued due to TEAEs. Seventeen patients (4%, all receiving 400 mg/day) experienced serious AEs.SignificanceLacosamide 400 mg/day monotherapy was effective, with a favorable safety profile in patients with focal epilepsy.

ObjectiveTo evaluate efficacy and safety of lacosamide (up to 12 mg/kg/day or 400 mg/day) as adjunctive treatment for uncontrolled primary generalised tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS) in patients (≥4 years) with idiopathic generalised epilepsy (IGE).MethodsPhase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial (SP0982; NCT02408523) in patients with IGE and PGTCS taking 1–3 concomitant antiepileptic drugs. Primary outcome was time to second PGTCS during 24-week treatment.Results242 patients were randomised and received ≥1 dose of trial medication (lacosamide/placebo: n=121/n=121). Patients (mean age: 27.7 years; 58.7% female) had a history of generalised-onset seizures (tonic-clonic 99.6%; myoclonic 38.8%; absence 37.2%). Median treatment duration with lacosamide/placebo was 143/65 days. Risk of developing a second PGTCS during 24-week treatment was significantly lower with lacosamide than placebo (Kaplan-Meier survival estimates 55.27%/33.37%; HR 0.540, 95% CI 0.377 to 0.774; p<0.001; n=118/n=121). Median time to second PGTCS could not be estimated for lacosamide (>50% of patients did not experience a second PGTCS) and was 77.0 days for placebo. Kaplan-Meier estimated freedom from PGTCS at end of the 24-week treatment period (day 166) for lacosamide/placebo was 31.3%/17.2% (difference 14.1%; p=0.011). More patients on lacosamide than placebo had ≥50% (68.1%/46.3%) or ≥75% (57.1%/36.4%) reduction from baseline in PGTCS frequency/28 days, or observed freedom from PGTCS during treatment (27.5%/13.2%) (n=119/n=121). 96/121 (79.3%) patients on lacosamide had treatment-emergent adverse events (placebo 79/121 (65.3%)), most commonly dizziness (23.1%), somnolence (16.5%), headache (14.0%). No patients died during the trial.ConclusionsLacosamide was efficacious and generally safe as adjunctive treatment for uncontrolled PGTCS in patients with IGE.

No abstract

We describe the successful use of methadone in the restoration of sedation and provision of analgesia in two morphine-tolerant, paediatric patients who had suffered significant thermal injuries and were undergoing mechanical ventilation. Both patients had exhibited escalating requirements for sedative drugs while undergoing ventilation yet remained inadequately sedated. The introduction of i.v. methadone in place of i.v. morphine in the sedative regimen rapidly and effectively restored a state of sedation. Hyperalgesia and morphine tolerance appear to be associated; it is proposed that methadone acts primarily, under these circumstances, by re-establishing the analgesic state. Such use of methadone in the morphine-tolerant patient also afforded a concomitant sedative-sparing effect.