Objective: To assess effectiveness and tolerability of first-line and conversion to lacosamide monotherapy for focal seizures. Materials and Methods: Retrospective, non-interventional chart review of lacosamide monotherapy patients aged >=16 years in Europe. Outcomes included retention rate at observational point (OP) 3 (12 ± 3 months), seizure freedom rates at OP2 (6 ± 3 months) and OP3 and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Results: A total of 439 patients were included (98 first-line and 341 conversion to monotherapy; 128 aged >=65 years [25 first-line and 103 conversion to monotherapy]). First-line and conversion to monotherapy retention rates were 60.2% (59/98; 95% confidence interval [CI] 49.8%-70.0%) and 62.5% (213/341; 57.1%-67.6%), respectively. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 12-month retention rates were 81.2% and 91.4% for first-line and conversion to monotherapy, respectively. First-line and conversion to monotherapy retention rates in patients aged >=65 years were 60.0% (38.7%-78.9%) and 68.9% (59.1%-77.7%), respectively. At OP2, 66.3% of first-line and 63.0% of conversion to monotherapy patients were seizure free. At OP3, 60.2% of first-line and 52.5% of conversion to monotherapy patients were seizure free. In the >=65 years subgroup, seizure freedom rates at OP2 were 72.0% and 68.0% for first-line and converted to monotherapy, respectively, and at OP3, 68.0% and 56.3%, respectively. Overall, 52 of 439 (11.8%) patients reported ADRs (16.4% in >=65 years subgroup), most commonly dizziness (5.0%), headache (2.1%) and somnolence (1.6%). Conclusions: Lacosamide was effective and well tolerated as first-line or conversion to monotherapy in a clinical setting in adult and elderly patients with focal seizures.

Lacosamide monotherapy in clinical practice: A retrospective chart review

A Gambardella;
2018

Abstract

Objective: To assess effectiveness and tolerability of first-line and conversion to lacosamide monotherapy for focal seizures. Materials and Methods: Retrospective, non-interventional chart review of lacosamide monotherapy patients aged >=16 years in Europe. Outcomes included retention rate at observational point (OP) 3 (12 ± 3 months), seizure freedom rates at OP2 (6 ± 3 months) and OP3 and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Results: A total of 439 patients were included (98 first-line and 341 conversion to monotherapy; 128 aged >=65 years [25 first-line and 103 conversion to monotherapy]). First-line and conversion to monotherapy retention rates were 60.2% (59/98; 95% confidence interval [CI] 49.8%-70.0%) and 62.5% (213/341; 57.1%-67.6%), respectively. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 12-month retention rates were 81.2% and 91.4% for first-line and conversion to monotherapy, respectively. First-line and conversion to monotherapy retention rates in patients aged >=65 years were 60.0% (38.7%-78.9%) and 68.9% (59.1%-77.7%), respectively. At OP2, 66.3% of first-line and 63.0% of conversion to monotherapy patients were seizure free. At OP3, 60.2% of first-line and 52.5% of conversion to monotherapy patients were seizure free. In the >=65 years subgroup, seizure freedom rates at OP2 were 72.0% and 68.0% for first-line and converted to monotherapy, respectively, and at OP3, 68.0% and 56.3%, respectively. Overall, 52 of 439 (11.8%) patients reported ADRs (16.4% in >=65 years subgroup), most commonly dizziness (5.0%), headache (2.1%) and somnolence (1.6%). Conclusions: Lacosamide was effective and well tolerated as first-line or conversion to monotherapy in a clinical setting in adult and elderly patients with focal seizures.
2018
Istituto di Bioimmagini e Fisiologia Molecolare - IBFM
Antiepileptic drug
Clinical practice
Epilepsy
Focal seizures
Monotherapy
Partial
Partial-onset
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14243/346841
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 21
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact