Hailong Cheng

Eslicarbazepine acetate as adjunctive therapy in patients with uncontrolled partial‐onset seizures: Results of a phase III, double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled trial

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in patients with refractory partial‐onset seizures.

Conversion to eslicarbazepine acetate monotherapy A pooled analysis of 2 phase III studies

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) monotherapy. Methods: This post hoc pooled analysis of 2 randomized double-blind studies (093-045 and -046) included adults with partial-onset seizures medically uncontrolled by 1 or 2 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Following the baseline period (8 weeks), eligible patients were randomized 2:1 to receive ESL 1,600 mg or 1,200 mg once daily for 18 weeks; the primary endpoint was study exit by meeting predefined exit criteria (signifying worsening seizure control). In each study, treatment was considered effective if the upper 95% confidence limit for exit rate was lower than the historical control threshold (65.3%). Results: Pooled exit rates were as follows: ESL 1,600 mg = 20.6% (95% confidence interval: 15.6%–26.8%); ESL 1,200 mg = 30.8% (23.0%–40.5%). Use of 2 baseline AEDs or rescue medication, US location, epilepsy duration ≥20 years, and higher maximum baseline seizure frequency were associated with higher exit risks. Median percent reductions in standardized seizure frequency between baseline and the 18-week double-blind period were as follows: ESL 1,600 mg = 43.2%; ESL 1,200 mg = 35.7%; baseline carbamazepine use was associated with smaller reductions. Safety profiles were similar between ESL doses. Conclusions: Exit rates for ESL monotherapy (1,600 mg and 1,200 mg once daily) were lower than the historical control threshold, irrespective of baseline AED use and region, with no additional safety concerns identified. Clinical factors and location clearly influence treatment responses in conversion-to-monotherapy trials. Classification of evidence: This pooled analysis provides Class IV evidence that for adults with medically uncontrolled partial-onset seizures, ESL monotherapy is well tolerated and effective.

Adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate: A pooled analysis of three phase III trials

OBJECTIVE To assess the safety and efficacy of once-daily (QD) adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL). METHODS This post-hoc pooled analysis of three randomized, placebo-controlled trials (2093-301, -302, -304) involved adults with refractory partial-onset seizures (POS) receiving 1-3 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). All studies included 8-week baseline, 2-week titration, and 12-week maintenance periods. Patients were randomized equally to placebo, ESL 400mg (studies 301, 302), 800mg, or 1200mg QD. The primary endpoint was standardized seizure frequency (SSF; per 4weeks); secondary endpoints included responder rates (maintenance period), and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), TEAEs leading to discontinuation, serious AEs (SAEs), and deaths. RESULTS The safety and efficacy analysis populations totaled 1447 and 1410 patients, respectively. SSF was significantly reduced versus placebo with ESL 800mg (p=0.0001) and 1200mg (p<0.0001) but not 400mg (p=0.81). There were no significant interactions between treatment effect and age, gender, race/ethnicity, geographic region, epilepsy duration, or concomitant AED use. Incidences of TEAEs and TEAEs leading to discontinuation increased with ESL dose. Incidences of the most frequent TEAEs were lower for patients who initiated dosing at 400 versus 800mg QD, regardless of titration regimen and maintenance dose. SAE incidence was <10%; there were 3 deaths (placebo, n=2; ESL 800mg, n=1). CONCLUSIONS ESL (800 and 1200mg QD) was effective and well tolerated as adjunctive therapy for adults with refractory POS.

A Pharmacokinetic Study Comparing Eslicarbazepine Acetate Administered Orally as a Crushed or Intact Tablet in Healthy Volunteers

The relative bioequivalence of crushed versus intact eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) tablets (800 mg) administered orally in healthy adults was evaluated in an open‐label, randomized, 2‐period crossover study with a 5‐day washout between treatments. Sample blood levels of eslicarbazepine and (R)‐licarbazepine were determined; pharmacokinetic parameters were derived for eslicarbazepine. Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the geometric mean treatment ratios of eslicarbazepine AUC(0–∞) and Cmax were within the prespecified 80%–125% range. Twenty‐seven subjects in the intent‐to‐treat population (n = 28) completed both treatment periods. Eslicarbazepine exposure measures were similar for crushed versus intact ESL tablets: average Cmax, 11 700 versus 11 500 ng/mL; AUC(0–∞), 225 000 versus 234 000 ng·h/mL; AUC(0–last), 222 000 versus 231 000 ng·h/mL, respectively. Geometric least squares mean ratios (90%CIs) comparing eslicarbazepine exposure measures were within the 80%–125% range (Cmax, 102.63% [97.07%–108.51%]; AUC(0–∞), 96.72% [94.36%–99.13%]; AUC0–last, 96.69% [94.24%–99.21%]). In conclusion, ESL administered orally as a crushed tablet sprinkled on applesauce, or intact were bioequivalent in healthy subjects. Eslicarbazepine bioavailability was not significantly altered by crushing, indicating that ESL tablets can be administered intact or crushed.

Influence of titration schedule and maintenance dose on the tolerability of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate: An integrated analysis of three randomized placebo-controlled trials

OBJECTIVE To examine the influence of titration schedule and maintenance dose on the incidence and type of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL). METHODS Data from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials were analyzed. Patients with refractory partial-onset seizures were randomized to maintenance doses of ESL 400, 800, or 1200mg QD (dosing was initiated at 400 or 800mg QD) or placebo. The incidence of TEAEs was analyzed during the double-blind period (2-week titration phase; 12-week maintenance phase), according to the randomized maintenance dose and the titration schedule. RESULTS 1447 patients were included in the analysis. During the first week of treatment, 62% of patients taking ESL 800mg QD had ≥1 TEAE, vs 35% of those taking 400mg QD and 32% of the placebo group; dizziness, somnolence, nausea, and headache were numerically more frequent in patients taking ESL 800mg than those taking ESL 400mg QD. During the double-blind period, the incidences of common TEAEs were lower in patients who initiated ESL at 400mg vs 800mg QD. For the 800 and 1200mg QD maintenance doses, rates of TEAEs leading to discontinuation were lower in patients who began treatment with 400mg than in those who began taking ESL 800mg QD. CONCLUSIONS Initiation of ESL at 800mg QD is feasible. However, initiating treatment with ESL 400mg QD for 1 or 2 weeks is recommended, being associated with a lower incidence of TEAEs, and related discontinuations. For some patients, treatment may be initiated at 800mg QD, if the need for more immediate seizure reduction outweighs concerns about increased risk of adverse reactions during initiation.

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.

Efficacy and safety of eslicarbazepine acetate monotherapy in patients converting from carbamazepine.

To evaluate the influence of prior use of carbamazepine (CBZ) and other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) with a putatively similar mechanism of action (inhibition of voltage‐gated sodium channels; VGSCs) on seizure outcomes and tolerability when converting to eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), using data pooled from 2 controlled conversion‐to‐ESL monotherapy trials (studies: 093‐045, 093‐046).

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.