The adverse event profile of lacosamide: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Defining the tolerability and safety profile of recently marketed antiepileptic drugs, such as lacosamide (LCM), is a prerequisite for their optimal utilization in clinical practice. We aimed to identify any adverse event (AE) associated with LCM treatment by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We also evaluated the association of serious AEs with LCM, the proportion of study withdrawals due to intolerable AEs at different LCM doses, and whether the tolerability profile of LCM differs according to the disorder in which it was investigated. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL to May 2011 for LCM RCTs. Additional studies were identified from reference lists of retrieved papers and from online clinical databases. We selected placebo-controlled, double-blind RCTs and investigated the therapeutic effects of oral LCM in adults with any condition. AEs were assessed for their association with LCM after identification/exclusion of synonyms, rare AEs, and non-assessable AEs. We used risk differences to evaluate the association of any (99% confidence intervals [CIs]) or serious AEs (95% CIs) with LCM and to investigate dose-response relationships of identified AEs. KEY FINDINGS: Ten RCTs (three in pharmacoresistant epilepsy, four in neuropathic pain, one in migraine, one in fibromyalgia, and one in knee osteoarthritis) were included in our study. Their duration varied from 12-18 weeks. The total number of patients included was 3,148. No serious AE was significantly associated with LCM treatment. Of 21 identified AEs, 11 (52%) were found to be significantly associated with LCM. The number of AEs significantly associated with LCM increased with increasing dose: one at 200 mg/day (dizziness); six at 400 mg/day (dizziness, vertigo, abnormal coordination, abnormal vision, nausea, and vomiting); nine at 600 mg/day (dizziness, vertigo, ataxia, balance disorder, diplopia, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, and tremor). The proportion of AE-related study withdrawals also significantly increased with increasing dose. LCM AEs tended to occur more frequently in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy compared with patients with other disorders. SIGNIFICANCE: A range of AEs suggestive of vestibulocerebellar dysfunction is significantly associated with LCM treatment and their incidence increases with increasing doses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.082 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".