Dataset Information

Safety of Eslicarbazepine Acetate in Elderly Versus Non-Elderly Patients with Focal Seizures: From Pooled Data of Clinical Studies to 8 Years of Post-Marketing Experience.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The prevalence of epilepsy increases in elderly patients aged > 65 years, and treatment is challenging because clinical data are limited.

Objective

Our objective was to evaluate the safety of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in patients aged ≥ 65 years versus non-elderly patients with focal seizures.

Methods

The safety data of seven phase II and III, double-blind, open-label, randomized clinical studies of ESL in adults were pooled. At least possibly related treatmentemergent adverse events (TEAEs) and ESL post-marketing adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were analyzed separately by age categories.

Results

The most frequently reported at least possibly related TEAEs in elderly (N = 120) versus non-elderly patients (N = 1863) were dizziness (10.8 vs. 20.3%), somnolence (9.2 vs. 12.6%), and hyponatremia (6.7 vs. 1.5%). Elderly patients presented a higher incidence of serious TEAEs (22.5 vs. 7.6%) and at least possibly related serious TEAEs (6.7 vs. 2.5%), probably because treatment was complicated by comorbidities and comedications. After an estimated cumulative exposure of over 2 million patient-months worldwide and 8 years of post-marketing surveillance, hyponatremia was the most frequently reported ADR (n = 232), accounting for 14.6% and 6.8% of the ADRs reported in elderly (n = 473) and non-elderly patients (n = 2406), respectively. This was followed by ADR/safety information such as drug-dose titration not performed (7.0 vs. 5.4%), product use in unapproved indication (4.9 vs. 1.9%), off-label use (3.4 vs. 2.2%), dizziness (3.4 vs. 3.5%), and seizure (2.1 vs. 5.8%).

Conclusion

No specific safety issue was identified from the pooled studies for elderly compared with non-elderly patients. After 8 years of post-marketing surveillance, the qualitative safety of ESL remains similar to that observed in the clinical studies.

SUBMITTER: Magalhaes LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8473370 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The incidence of epilepsy is high within the first few years of life, stabilizes over the second through fifth decades, and then rises again. Treatment of elderly patients with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is complicated by increased sensitivity to drug effects, altered pharmacokinetics and an increased risk for drug interactions due to polytherapy. On the other hand, the safety and efficacy data of AEDs attained during clinical development programmes are relatively limited for this age group. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, tolerability and efficacy of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as adjunctive therapy in patients aged???65 years with focal-onset seizures (FOS). METHODS:This was an international, multicentre, open-label, non-controlled, single-arm, post-European approval commitment study with flexible doses of ESL between 400 and 1200 mg/day. Seventy-two elderly patients with at least two FOS in the prior 4 weeks, and treated with one or two AEDs, were enrolled. The study consisted of an 8-week baseline, followed by a 26-week treatment period during which the investigator was allowed to up- or down-titrate the ESL dose, and a 4-week follow-up period. Safety and tolerability were assessed as well as mental sedation, cognitive mental state and suicidal ideation. Efficacy was assessed based on patient diaries regarding the absolute and relative changes in seizure frequency, change in intellectual impairment and quality of life. RESULTS:Overall, 47 (65.3%) patients experienced 152 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). The most frequent were dizziness (12.5%), somnolence (9.7%), fatigue, convulsion and hyponatraemia (8.3% each). All patients that experienced hyponatraemia (6/72) recovered without sequelae. Three patients died during the study (due to cardiac failure, glioblastoma multiforme and ischaemic stroke, all considered unrelated to ESL). Overall, 16 (22.2%) patients discontinued prematurely due to TEAEs. The incidences of clinically significant findings were low for vital signs, ECG, physical and neurological examinations. No TEAEs of hypothyroidism were reported; however, 24 (33.3%) patients presented post-baseline shifts from normal to decreased free T4 levels (not clinically significant). ESL decreased standardized seizure frequency from a mean of 4.8 seizures at baseline to 3.6 seizures at endpoint (p?>?0.05); and mean number of days with seizures significantly decreased from 4.1 (baseline) to 2.8 at endpoint (p?=?0.0408). CONCLUSION:ESL taken once daily (400-1200 mg) as adjunctive therapy in patients aged???65 years was found to be safe, well tolerated and efficacious (EudraCT number: 2009-012587-14).

Project description:IntroductionThe aim of this study was to compare healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) before and after initiation of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in the long-term care (LTC) setting (rehabilitation center, mental health center, LTC non-skilled nursing facility/assisted-living facility, home health, assisted living, nursing home, other/unknown).MethodsThis retrospective analysis used IQVIA's New Data Warehouse, which includes deterministically linked LTC, prescription, and professional fee claims data and IQVIA Hospital Charge Data Master database. The study period was 1 April 2013 to 31 December 2019. The index date was the date of ESL initiation in the LTC setting. Inclusion criteria were: (1) ≥ 1 new ESL prescription between 1 April 2014 and 31 December 2018; (2) diagnosis of focal seizure (FS) during the 12 months pre-index date; and (3) no ESL prescription during the 12-month period pre-index. A 12-month pre-post analysis compared epilepsy-specific and all-cause HCRU before and after ESL initiation. Categorical variables were compared with McNemar's tests.ResultsA total of 307 patients (mean age 52.2 years, 57.7% male) with FS were included, of whom 24.8% were in nursing homes. Patients used a mean of 3.1 antiseizure drugs prior to initiation of ESL, and 87.9% of patients initiated ESL as adjunctive treatment. There were significant reductions in proportion of patients with epilepsy specific physician office visits, emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and all-cause physician office visits and hospitalizations in the post-index period compared to the pre-index period (P < 0.05). Similar results were observed in sensitivity (patients with an epilepsy diagnosis) and subgroup analyses [presence or absence of intellectual developmental disorders or age (≥ 65 and < 65 years)].ConclusionProportion of patients with epilepsy-specific physician office visits, ED visits, hospitalizations, and all-cause physician office visits and hospitalizations were significantly reduced following initiation of ESL in patients with FS in LTC.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) could lead to exacerbation of seizures in some patients.MethodsPost-hoc analysis of data pooled from three Phase III trials of adjunctive ESL (studies 301, 302, and 304) for refractory partial-onset seizures (POS). Following an 8-week baseline period, patients were randomized to receive placebo or ESL 400, 800, or 1,200 mg once daily (2-week titration, 12-week maintenance, 2-4 week tapering-off periods). Patient seizure diary data and seizure treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) reports were pooled for analysis.ResultsThe modified intent-to-treat and safety populations comprised 1,410 patients and 1,447 patients, respectively. Titration period: Compared with placebo (32/21%), significantly smaller proportions of patients taking ESL 800 mg (20/15%) and 1,200 mg (22/12%) had a ≥25/≥50% increase in standardized seizure frequency (SSF) from baseline; there was no significant difference between placebo and ESL 400 mg. Maintenance period: Compared with placebo (20%), significantly smaller proportions of patients taking ESL (400 mg, 12%; 800 mg, 12%; 1,200 mg, 14%) had an increase in SSF ≥25%. When evaluating ≥50% increases in SSF, only ESL 800 mg (7%) was significantly different from placebo (12%). Some patients had no secondarily generalized tonic-clonic (sGTC) seizures during baseline but had ≥1 sGTC seizure during maintenance treatment (placebo, 11%; ESL 400 mg, 5%; 800 mg, 10%; 1,200 mg, 5%). Fewer patients had a ≥25% increase in sGTC seizure frequency with ESL (400 mg, 11%; 800 mg, 9%; 1,200 mg, 14%) versus placebo (19%). The incidence of seizures reported as TEAEs was low in all treatment groups; incidences were generally lower with ESL versus placebo. Tapering-off period: Similar proportions of patients taking ESL and placebo had a ≥25/≥50% increase in SSF. Seizure TEAE incidence was numerically higher with ESL versus placebo.SignificanceTreatment with adjunctive ESL does not appear to aggravate POS or sGTC seizures.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) monotherapy during long-term treatment.MethodsAn open-label extension (OLE) study was conducted in adults completing a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial, during which they had received monotherapy with either once-daily ESL or twice-daily controlled-release carbamazepine (CBZ-CR) for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. In the OLE study, all patients received ESL (800-1600 mg/d) for 2 years. Primary efficacy outcome was retention time (from baseline of the OLE study). Secondary efficacy assessments included seizure freedom rate (no seizures during the OLE study) and responder rate (≥50% seizure frequency reduction from baseline of double-blind trial). Safety assessments included evaluation of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).ResultsOf 206 randomized patients, 96 who received ESL in the double-blind trial (ESL/ESL) and 88 who received CBZ-CR in the double-blind trial (CBZ-CR/ESL) were treated with ESL monotherapy (89.3% overall). Treatment retention time was similar between groups, with low probability of ESL withdrawal overall (<0.07 at any time). After 24 months, the probability of ESL withdrawal was 0.0638 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.0292-0.1366) in the ESL/ESL group and 0.0472 (95% CI = 0.0180-0.1210) in the CBZ-CR/ESL group. Seizure freedom rates were 90.6% (ESL/ESL) and 80.7% (CBZ-CR/ESL; P = .0531). Responder rates remained >80% in both groups throughout the study. Incidence of serious TEAEs was similar between groups (7.3% vs 5.7%; 0% vs 1.1% possibly related), as were the incidences of TEAEs considered at least possibly related to treatment (17.7% vs 18.2%) and TEAEs leading to discontinuation (3.1% vs 4.5%). The types of TEAEs were generally consistent with the known safety profile of ESL.SignificanceESL monotherapy was efficacious and generally well tolerated over the long term, including in patients who transitioned from CBZ-CR monotherapy. No new safety concerns emerged.

Project description:ObjectiveThe RNS System is a direct brain-responsive neurostimulation system that is US Food and Drug Administration-approved for adults with medically intractable focal onset seizures based on safety and effectiveness data from controlled clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the real-world safety and effectiveness of the RNS System.MethodsEight comprehensive epilepsy centers conducted a chart review of patients treated with the RNS System for at least 1 year, in accordance with the indication for use. Data included device-related serious adverse events and the median percent change in disabling seizure frequency from baseline at years 1, 2, and 3 of treatment and at the most recent follow-up.ResultsOne hundred fifty patients met the criteria for analysis. The median reduction in seizures was 67% (interquartile range [IQR] = 33%-93%, n = 149) at 1 year, 75% (IQR = 50%-94%, n = 93) at 2 years, 82% (IQR = 50%-96%, n = 38) at ≥3 years, and 74% (IQR = 50%-96%, n = 150) at last follow-up (mean = 2.3 years). Thirty-five percent of patients had a ≥90% seizure frequency reduction, and 18% of patients reported being clinically seizure-free at last follow-up. Seizure frequency reductions were similar regardless of patient age, age at epilepsy onset, duration of epilepsy, seizure onset in mesial temporal or neocortical foci, magnetic resonance imaging findings, prior intracranial monitoring, prior epilepsy surgery, or prior vagus nerve stimulation treatment. The infection rate per procedure was 2.9% (6/150 patients); five of the six patients had an implant site infection, and one had osteomyelitis. Lead revisions were required in 2.7% (4/150), and 2.0% (3/150) of patients had a subdural hemorrhage, none of which had long-lasting neurological consequences.SignificanceIn this real-world experience, safety was similar and clinical seizure outcomes exceeded those of the prospective clinical trials, corroborating effectiveness of this therapy and suggesting that clinical experience has informed more effective programming.