Efficacy and safety of lacosamide as an adjunctive therapy for refractory focal epilepsy in paediatric patients: a retrospective single‐centre study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Lacosamide is an antiepileptic drug approved for the treatment of focal epilepsy in adult patients. The aim of this observational study was to review our centre's experience with lacosamide and to characterize its effectiveness and tolerability as an adjunctive antiepileptic drug in a retrospective cohort of children with refractory focal epilepsy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 22 patients who received lacosamide from November 2009 to April 2014 at the CHU Ste-Justine, University of Montreal. Treatment responders were defined as children with a ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency compared to baseline, and this was determined three months after the initiation of treatment and at the last follow-up visit. RESULTS: We included 14 boys and eight girls with a mean age of 12.9 years (SD: 5.2; range: 5.2-20.7 years) at the initiation of treatment. The average length of follow-up was 11.9 months. Patients had previously received an average of 7.5 antiepileptic drugs. The mean number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs was 2.3. The mean initial and maintenance doses were 2.9 and 8.4 mg/kg/d, respectively. Thirteen (59%) and ten (45%) patients were responders after three months of treatment and at the last follow-up visit, respectively. One became seizure-free. Adverse effects were reported in 11 patients and none were severe. Responders and non-responders were identical with respect to all studied parameters except gender, with the proportion of responders being greater in girls than in boys (75% vs 29%; p=0.035). CONCLUSION: Our study adds evidence that lacosamide appears to be a safe and effective adjunctive therapy for children with refractory focal epilepsy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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; 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".