4.2 Article

LACONORTE study: Efficacy and security of lacosamide as first add-on therapy for focal-onset epilepsy in real-life setting

Journal

EPILEPSY RESEARCH
Volume 145, Issue -, Pages 51-54

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2018.05.011

Keywords

Lacosamide; Antiepileptic; Add-on; Real-life; Focal-onset epilepsy; Adjunctive

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rationale: Many patients with epilepsy need a second antiepileptic drug (AED), due either to inefficacy or side effects of the first tried one. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of lacosamide (LCM) as first add-on therapy in the real-life setting. Methods: LACONORTE is a multicenter, retrospective, one-year study. Patients with focal epilepsy on monotherapy with another AED who were started on lacosamide as first add-on therapy were included. Clinical data was obtained at 3, 6 and 12 months and then analyzed. Results: Seventy-three patients (48.6% men) with a mean age of 50.3 and a median duration of the epilepsy of 3.0 years (range 0-65) were included. At 1 year, 91.8% were responders (with at least 50% reduction in the number of seizures) and 64.4% of all patients and 75.8% of those with secondary generalization were seizurefree. Fifteen patients (20.5%) had adverse events (AE), most of them were transient and no severe AEs were reported. LCM was withdrawn in 2 patients due to intolerance and in 1 patient because of inefficacy. Neither side effects nor withdrawal seemed to be related to total dose or to escalating regimes. Seventy patients (95.9%) continued on LCM after the last visit (median dose 200 mg/day, ranging 100-400). Eighteen (24.7%) converted to monotherapy during the 12-month period, 83.3% of them remaining seizure-free. Conclusions: These results of real-life setting show LCM to be efficacious and safe when used as first add-on therapy for focal-onset epilepsy. Most adverse events were mild and/or transient.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available