Time to baseline seizure count in patients with focal seizures receiving adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate in a phase IV clinical trial.

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), a once-daily, orally-administered, anti-seizure medication (ASM), have primarily been established in treatment-resistant epilepsy patients, the population most often enrolled in clinical trials of anti-seizure medications. More recently, ESL was also shown to be effective and well-tolerated as first adjunctive therapy in non-treatment-resistant patients in an open-label, non-randomized, Phase IV, 24-week study of ESL using standard efficacy parameters in adults with focal seizures.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the time required to reach baseline seizure count, as an alternative method of assessing the efficacy of adjunctive ESL in patients with relatively low baseline monthly seizure frequencies. This additional analysis was undertaken, as subtle changes and improvements are difficult to analyze using standard efficacy parameters, such as standardized seizure frequency reduction when the baseline frequency of seizures is particularly low.

METHODS

This was a post-hoc analysis of the Phase IV study data, which investigated time to baseline seizure count in patients aged ≥ 18 years with focal seizures as an alternative measure of anti-seizure efficacy. In the Phase IV trial, patients had been enrolled into 2 groups: Arm 1: ESL as first adjunctive therapy to levetiracetam (LEV) or lamotrigine (LTG), the two most commonly-prescribed ASMs, in patients with inadequate response to treatment; Arm 2: ESL as a later adjunctive therapy, following prior use of 1-2 ASMs in patients who required an additional therapeutic option.

RESULTS

The time to reach individual baseline seizure count was longer in patients with focal seizures receiving ESL as a first (Arm 1) versus later (Arm 2) adjunctive therapy (p = 0.005). Patients who received ESL as a first adjunctive therapy had a longer time to ESL discontinuation than patients who received ESL as a later adjunctive therapy (p = 0.04). In Arm 1, patients receiving concomitant LTG reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) significantly earlier than those receiving LEV (p = 0.02). Compared to patients receiving concomitant LTG, a greater number of patients in Arm 1 who were taking concomitant LEV had a modal ESL dose > 1200 mg and completed the full maintenance period. A greater number of patients in Arm 1 who were receiving concomitant LEV and completed the 24-week maintenance period reached a maximum ESL dose of 1600 mg, compared to those taking LTG, who reached a maximum ESL dose of 1200 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis of the Phase IV clinical trial data provides an alternative way of assessing efficacy beyond standardized seizure frequency reduction, in the context of relatively low monthly median seizure frequencies at baseline (SSF 2.0-2.4). These results provide further support for the use of ESL as an earlier or later adjunctive therapy to LEV or LTG.