Safety and tolerability of lacosamide as adjunctive therapy for adults with partial-onset seizures: Analysis of data pooled from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe a priori protocol-defined analyses to evaluate the safety and tolerability of adjunctive oral lacosamide (200-600 mg/day) in adults (ages 16-70 years) with partial-onset seizures (POS) using data pooled from three similarly designed randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (SP667, SP754 [NCT00136019], SP755 [NCT00220415]). METHODS: Patients with POS (≥2 years' duration, ≥2 previous antiepileptic drugs [AEDs]) uncontrolled by a stable dosing regimen of 1-3 concomitant AEDs were randomized to treatment with lacosamide at doses of 200 mg/day, 400 mg/day, or 600 mg/day, or placebo. Studies comprised a 4- to 6-week titration phase to target dose followed by a 12-week maintenance phase. Safety outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of particular relevance to patients with POS, overall TEAEs, and discontinuations due to TEAEs. Post hoc analyses included evaluation of TEAEs potentially related to cognition and TEAEs leading to discontinuation analyzed by concomitant AEDs. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred eight patients were randomized to and received treatment; 944 to lacosamide and 364 to placebo. Most patients (84.4%) were taking 2 or 3 concomitant AEDs. The most common drug-associated TEAEs (reported by ≥5% of patients in any lacosamide dose group and with an incidence at least twice that reported for placebo during the treatment phase) were dizziness (30.6% for lacosamide vs 8.2% for placebo), nausea (11.4% vs 4.4%), and diplopia (10.5% vs 1.9%). Common drug-associated TEAEs generally appeared to be dose-related, and the incidence of each was lower during the 12-week maintenance phase than during the titration phase. Most TEAEs were either mild or moderate in intensity; severe TEAEs were predominantly observed with lacosamide 600 mg/day. No individual serious TEAE occurred in ≥1% of all lacosamide-treated patients. Treatment-emergent adverse events led to discontinuation in 8.1%, 17.2%, and 28.6% of the lacosamide 200-, 400-, and 600-mg/day groups, respectively (vs 4.9% of placebo). Few TEAEs were related to rash, weight loss/gain, changes in clinical chemistry parameters, or psychiatric disturbances, or were seizure-related. The odds of reporting any potential cognition-related TEAE vs placebo increased with dose and were similar between lacosamide doses of 200 and 400mg/day and placebo (odds ratio 1.3, 95% confidence interval 0.7-2.4). Discontinuations due to TEAEs based on most commonly used AEDs taken in combination with lacosamide (all doses combined) were carbamazepine (15.3% [51/334] vs 3.9% [5/129] placebo), lamotrigine (19.2% [56/291] vs 4.3% [5/117]), and levetiracetam (10.1% [28/278] vs 3.9% [4/103]). CONCLUSIONS: The safety and tolerability profile of adjunctive lacosamide in this detailed evaluation was similar to that observed in the individual double-blind trials. Adjunctive lacosamide was associated with TEAEs related to the nervous system and gastrointestinal tract, predominantly during titration.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".