Francisco Rocha

Severity and burden of partial-onset seizures in a phase III trial of eslicarbazepine acetate.

OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to compare posttreatment seizure severity in a phase III clinical trial of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as adjunctive treatment of refractory partial-onset seizures. METHODS The Seizure Severity Questionnaire (SSQ) was administered at baseline and posttreatment. The SSQ total score (TS) and component scores (frequency and helpfulness of warning signs before seizures [BS]; severity and bothersomeness of ictal movement and altered consciousness during seizures [DS]; cognitive, emotional, and physical aspects of postictal recovery after seizures [AS]; and overall severity and bothersomeness [SB]) were calculated for the per-protocol population. Analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline scores, estimated differences in posttreatment least square means between treatment arms. RESULTS Out of 547 per-protocol patients, 441 had valid SSQ TS both at baseline and posttreatment. Mean posttreatment TS for ESL 1200 mg/day was significantly lower than that for placebo (2.68 vs 3.20, p<0.001), exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID: 0.48). Mean DS, AS, and SB were also significantly lower with ESL 1200 mg/day; differences in AS and SB exceeded the MCIDs. The TS, DS, AS, and SB were lower for ESL 800 mg/day than for placebo; only SB was significant (p=0.013). For both ESL arms combined versus placebo, mean scores differed significantly for TS (p=0.006), DS (p=0.031), and SB (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS Therapeutic ESL doses led to clinically meaningful, dose-dependent reductions in seizure severity, as measured by SSQ scores. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE This study presents Class I evidence that adjunctive ESL (800 and 1200 mg/day) led to clinically meaningful, dose-dependent seizure severity reductions, measured by the SSQ.

Effects of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate on neurocognitive functioning in children with refractory focal-onset seizures

PURPOSE This was a phase-II, randomized, double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled study aimed to evaluate neurocognitive effects of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as adjunctive therapy in pediatric patients with refractory focal-onset seizures (FOS). METHODS Children (6-16years old) with FOS were randomized (2:1) to ESL or placebo. Treatment started at 10mg/kg/day, was up-titrated up to 30mg/kg/day (target dose), and maintained for 8weeks, followed by one-year open-label follow-up. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to the end of maintenance period in the composite Power of Attention assessed with the Cognitive Drug Research (CDR) system. Behavioral and emotional functioning and quality of life (QOL), secondary endpoints, were assessed with Child Health Questionnaire-Parent Form 50 (CHQ-PF50), Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), and Ravens Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM). Efficacy was evaluated through changes in standardized seizure frequency (SF), responder rate, and proportion of seizure-free patients. Safety was evaluated by the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS One hundred and twenty-three patients were randomized. A noninferiority analysis failed to reject the null hypothesis that the change from baseline in the Power of Attention score in the ESL group was at least 121ms inferior to the placebo group for all age groups. The CDR scores showed no differences between placebo and ESL in Power of Attention (1868.0 vs 1759.5), Continuity of Attention (1.136 vs -1.786), Quality of Working Memory (-0.023 vs -0.024), and Speed of Memory (-263.4 vs -249.6). Nonsignificant differences between placebo and ESL were seen for CHQ-PF50, CBCL scores, and Ravens SPM. Episodic Memory Index showed significant negative effect on ESL. Efficacy results favored the ESL group (SF least square [LS] means 1.98 vs 4.29). The TEAEs had a similar incidence between treatment groups (41.0% vs 47.5%). CONCLUSIONS 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.

Psychiatric and cognitive adverse events: A pooled analysis of three phase III trials of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate for partial-onset seizures

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the nature and incidence of psychiatric and cognitive adverse events (AEs) reported with eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) used as adjunctive treatment for refractory partial-onset seizures (POS) in adults. METHODS This was a post-hoc analysis of data pooled from three randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (BIA-2093-301, -302, -304). After an 8-week baseline period, patients received placebo or adjunctive ESL 400mg (studies 301 and 302 only), 800mg, or 1200mg once daily (QD) for 14weeks (2-week titration period, 12-week maintenance period). Psychiatric and cognitive AEs were identified from individual patient data. Suicidality was also evaluated using the Columbia-Classification Algorithm of Suicide Assessment (C-CASA), or the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS). P-values were obtained using the chi-square test of independence or Fishers exact test, without correcting for multiplicity. RESULTS The analysis population included 1447 patients (ESL, n=1021; placebo, n = 426). Psychiatric treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) occurred in 10.8% of patients receiving ESL, and in a comparable proportion (10.3%) of patients receiving placebo (p=0.802). The incidence of depression and suicidality-related TEAEs was higher for ESL (7.4%) vs. placebo (3.8%) (p=0.009). The occurrence of these TEAEs differed between treatment groups (p = 0.010), but there was no notable trend between increasing ESL dose and increasing incidence of depression and suicidality-related TEAEs. Aggression/hostility-related TEAEs occurred in <0.1% of patients taking ESL vs. 0.9% taking placebo. The incidence of cognitive TEAEs was higher for ESL (7.1%) vs. placebo (4.0%) (p=0.023); incidences of memory impairment, attention disturbance, apathy, and aphasia were higher for ESL 1200mg than for other treatment groups. Incidences of psychiatric and cognitive serious AEs (SAEs) were 0.6% and 0.2% with ESL, and 0.5% and 0% with placebo, respectively. Psychiatric and cognitive TEAEs leading to discontinuation occurred in 1.9% and 1.4% of patients taking ESL, and 0.7% and 0.5% taking placebo, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In phase III clinical trials of adjunctive ESL for treatment-refractory POS, psychiatric and cognitive TEAEs were reported infrequently with ESL and placebo. The incidences of depression and suicidality-related TEAEs and of cognitive TEAEs were higher for patients taking ESL vs. placebo. Incidences of psychiatric and cognitive SAEs, and TEAEs leading to discontinuation, were low with ESL and placebo.

Exposure-safety and efficacy response relationships and population pharmacokinetics of eslicarbazepine acetate

Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is a once‐daily (QD) oral antiepileptic drug (AED) for focal‐onset seizures (FOS). Pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) models were developed to assess dose selection, identify significant AED drug interactions, and quantitate relationships between exposure and safety and efficacy outcomes from Phase 3 trials of adjunctive ESL.

Tolerability of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate according to concomitant lamotrigine or carbamazepine use: A subgroup analysis of three phase III trials in adults with focal (partial-onset) seizures

OBJECTIVE To evaluate and compare the effects of concomitant lamotrigine (LTG) or carbamazepine (CBZ) on the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in patients taking adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) for focal (partial-onset) seizures (FS). METHODS These post-hoc analyses of data pooled from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of adjunctive ESL (BIA-2093-301, -302 and -304) included adults (≥16 years) with FS refractory to 1-3 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Patients were randomized equally to placebo, ESL 400 mg (Studies 301 and 302 only), 800 mg, or 1200 mg once daily (8-week baseline, 2-week titration, and 12-week maintenance periods). TEAEs, TEAEs leading to discontinuation, and serious AEs (SAEs) were evaluated in patients taking, or not taking, LTG (excluding those taking CBZ or phenytoin [PHT]; i.e., the +LTG and -LTG/-CBZ subgroups), or CBZ (excluding those taking LTG or PHT; i.e., the +CBZ and -LTG/-CBZ subgroups) at baseline. RESULTS LTG was used concomitantly by 248 patients (+LTG; placebo, n = 81; ESL, n = 167) and CBZ by 613 patients (+CBZ; placebo, n = 172; ESL, n = 441); 361 patients were taking neither LTG nor CBZ (-LTG/-CBZ; placebo, n = 109; ESL, n = 252). The overall incidence of TEAEs with ESL (any dose) was numerically higher for +CBZ (77%) than for +LTG (73%) or -LTG/-CBZ (68%; statistical significance not tested). Among patients taking ESL, dizziness, diplopia, and vomiting were reported more frequently in the +CBZ subgroup (30%, 14%, and 10%, respectively) than in the +LTG (16%, 8%, 5%) or -LTG/-CBZ (11%, 3%, 5%) subgroups. The overall incidence of TEAEs leading to discontinuation with ESL was higher for +CBZ (21%) than for +LTG (13%) or -LTG/-CBZ (15%). Dizziness leading to discontinuation with ESL was reported more frequently in the +CBZ subgroup than in the +LTG or -LTG/-CBZ subgroups (9%, 3%, and 3%, respectively). The overall incidence of SAEs in patients taking ESL was comparable across subgroups (+LTG, 5%; +CBZ, 6%; -LTG/-CBZ, 5%). The results were similar when evaluating placebo-adjusted incidences. CONCLUSION There was a potential pharmacodynamic interaction between AEDs with a putatively similar mechanism of action, with a seemingly lesser interaction between ESL and LTG versus ESL and CBZ. If combining ESL with LTG or CBZ, clinicians should be aware of the potential risk for an increased incidence of TEAEs typically associated with voltage-gated sodium channel inhibitors (e.g., dizziness, blurred vision, vertigo, diplopia, headache, or vomiting).

Incidence of seizure exacerbation and seizures reported as adverse events during adjunctive treatment with eslicarbazepine acetate: A pooled analysis of three Phase III controlled trials

To investigate whether adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) could lead to exacerbation of seizures in some patients.